1

2

InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd 2013

The information contained in this document produced by InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd is solely for the use of the Client for the purposes for which it has been prepared and InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd undertakes no duty or accepts any responsibility to any third party who may rely on this document.

All rights reserved. No sections or elements of this document may be removed from this document, reproduced, electronically stored or transmitted in any form without the written permission of InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd.

Because of the statistical nature of this report, care should be taken in interpreting the data presented throughout. Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information included in this report, InfraPlan (Aust) Pty Ltd and its contractors make no representations, either express or implied, that the information is accurate or fit for any purpose and expressly disclaims all liability for loss or damage arising from reliance upon the information in this report.

Client Planning Division

Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure

Author George Giannakodakis

Principal InfraPlan (Aust) P/L

Adelaide

Level 1, 22-26 Vardon Avenue, Adelaide SA 5000 p: +61 8 8227 0372 m: 0401 124 320

InfraPlan researchers and chapter contributors include Stuart Coles, Nicholas Mavrogiannis, Brad McCormack, Amanda Dunbar and Juanita Castillon.

Last saved 3/12/2013 7:40:34 PM Version 3.5

Last saved by Last saved by George Giannakodakis

3

Executive Summary 5

Infrastructure Costs 5

30 Year Plan Costs 6

Household expenditure and affordability 6

Building Industry benefits 7

Other findings of this study 12

Introduction 15

Chapter 1. Shifting market demand 16

Population growth rates and preferences 16

Population Growth of Middle and Inner-Metropolitan Suburbs 17

Land Supply and Affordability 18

Adelaide’s Point of Difference - Housing Affordability in the Middle-Ring Suburbs 19

Chapter 2. Infrastructure Costs 22

Charging Ranges – Productivity Commission Report, 2011 23

Infrastructure Costs 23

30 Year Plan Infrastructure Costs 25

Chapter 3. Household expenditure and affordability 26

Housing affordability and pricing 26

Spread of Housing Prices on the Metropolitan Fringe 28

Transport Costs 28

Housing Plus Transport Costs Over 20 Years 29

H + T Affordability Index 30

The Inclusion of Externalities 32

Chapter 4. Building industry benefits 33

Economic Impact of the Two Development Typologies 35

Infill Economic Impact per 1000 Dwellings (Middle Scenario – See Below) 38

Greenfield Economic Impact per 1000 Dwellings 38

Chapter 5. Metropolitan Capacity 40

Re-thinking land consumption approaches 40

Improving the Infill development uptake 42

Chapter 6: Other benefits and impacts 46

Urban Densification 46

Transport Options and Accessibility 47

Density and Public Transport Cost Recovery Ratio 47

Main Streets 48

Agricultural Worth and Greenfield Conflict 48

4

Adelaide’s Peri-Urban Primary Production 49

Environmental Benefits of Peri-Urban Agriculture 52

Cumulative Self-Containment of Peri-Urban Regions 52

Urban Renewal 53

Green Open Spaces and the Environment 53

Walkability and Connectivity 53

Health and Wellbeing 54

Bibliography 55

Image Resources 58

Appendices 62

Appendix A: Infrastructure costing assumptions 63

Appendix B: Housing cost assumptions 67

Appendix C: Transportation Cost assumptions 73

Appendix D: Typical Infill developers 76

Appendix E: Household occupancy between census periods 92

Appendix F: Calculations relating to economic benefits of redirecting 20,000 dwellings 93

5

Executive Summary

This paper examines the infrastructure costs, household running costs and economic impact (jobs and industry) of infill versus greenfield development (see page 15 for a definition of these two types of development). The benefits, costs and impacts of these two types of development can vary widely depending on where they are applied: city, inner and middle ring metropolitan areas, on the metropolitan periphery, as an extension to townships and peri-urban areas such as hills communities. Both types of development have, and continue to contribute to, housing choice and a broad range of housing markets.

The recent discussions about urban renewal and density, urban sprawl and re-zoning on the metropolitan fringe raises fundamental questions for planners, legislators, state and local government agencies, community groups and residents. The purpose of this paper is to stimulate discussion through examining many of the assumptions that sit behind statements and/or policies relating to affordability and land supply, infrastructure costs, population growth and the impact of these two types of development on the building industry and local economy.

Infrastructure Costs

A number of studies that measure the capital and recurrent costs of physical and social infrastructure; relating to ‘greenfield’ and ‘infill’ development, have been cited as a part of this study (see Appendix A).

There is a view that greenfield development comes at a substantially higher infrastructure cost because of the need for new suburban roads, new trunk water and sewer lines and processing facilities, power (sub stations and plants) and communication systems. Government has traditionally provided these physical ‘head works’ as well as basic community services such as town centres, health care facilities, schools, emergency services, police, public transport and recreation reserves. In contrast, these services and infrastructure partly or wholly exist within infill locations and may support spare capacity. Evidence suggests that these infrastructure items can be provided at a comparatively lower infrastructure cost at infill locations because it is more cost effective to ‘augment’ existing systems, compared to greenfield developments. In practice the level of infrastructure capacity at infill locations varies widely as does the density of development in greenfield locations (creating economies of scale and lowering the infrastructure cost per lot).

Given the variation of infrastructure costs between cities, as well as locations across the metropolitan area, (inner urban, peri-urban and greenfield) the research has been drawn from a range of sources. Two approaches have been applied:

A. Current case studies of development in greenfield locations on the periphery of Adelaide.

B. Bench marking against other Australian cities given there is a reasonable consistency in the style of development and infrastructure costs, notwithstanding local differences that add to these costs.

The challenge in applying these benchmarks is that infrastructure costs are heavily dependent on area-specific factors. In many cases ‘transport can make up 50% of the cost difference between the two iconic development forms’. The cost of sewerage and water infrastructure also varies widely depending on terrain and trenching conditions as well as system capacity and thresholds. For example, waste processing requirements and major water supply for the Northern Region forms up to half of the cost of providing infrastructure to fulfil the Playford Growth Area. ‘Trigger’ points and thresholds therefore form an important part of the analysis and could make a significant difference to the final infrastructure cost outcome. To this end the costs provided by this study are subject to a more thorough assessment on a case by case basis. Figure 1 below represents the findings of this study diagrammatically using current cost estimates (case studies and bench-marking). Figure 3 also represents this information across the three broad areas of development type and location.

6

30 Year Plan Costs

In simple terms, applying the above assumptions, the infrastructure cost of greenfield development for 124,000 dwellings over the stated 30 years could be expected to be as high as $8.6 billion based on the above analysis1 (Present Value $5.4 billion, Discount rate 4%).

The infrastructure cost of infill development for 134, 000 dwellings over the stated 30 years could be expected to be $2.7 billion based on the above analysis (Present Value $1.5 billion, Discount rate 4%).

These costs do not include some projects recently identified in the Integrated Transport and Land Use Plan (2013) given that many of the transport benefits accrue over a wider area (e.g. the north-south corridor project).

Household expenditure and affordability

Over the past decade the issue of housing affordability has tended to focus on the recurrent cost of mortgage repayments and how this impacts on household expenditure (mortgage repayments or rent payments that exceed 30% of total household income are said to cause housing stress). Transport costs form the second largest component of household expenditure (approximately 15-20%) in most Australian households (based on ABS data). A more complete measure of affordability is that combining housing and transportation costs. In the United States this is referred to as the ‘H+T Affordability Index’ and is said to measure the ‘true affordability and location efficiency’.

The transport cost component of a household budget is generally far higher in metropolitan fringe locations reflecting higher car ownership rates and the need to travel further to reach social and economic

1 Assume $80,500 per lot in greenfield locations and $45,000 per lot in townships given there is some existing

capacity and infrastructure assumed

Figure 1: Infrastructure cost per lot (greenfield) or 'net dwelling' (infill), a solid bar indicates more certainty in data source

7

needs. Car dependence is exacerbated where there is a shortfall in public transport and a lack of employment in an area. Public transport in fringe locations of Adelaide tends to be less wide spread and less frequent (see metro timetables). In Mount Barker over 50% of workers leave the township every morning for work outside of the LGA (ABS, 2011). Employment self-sufficiency and urban density can make a significant difference to car dependence. For example, in the City of Adelaide only 34% of workers travel to work by car compared to 72% in Mount Barker. Close to 40% of employed city dwellers cycle or walk to work. Lower rates of car ownership have also been observed along Adelaide’s fixed public transport lines.

An analysis of the impact of transportation on household budgets (see Figure 2 and Figure 4) has been applied using a number of simple and average assumptions2. Assumptions have been made in relation to average weekly running costs of vehicles as per RAA sources (cost assumptions applied with respect to car ownerships rates based on percentiles for each council), metro public transport ticket costs, ‘Journey to Work’ information relating to average journey distances to work by LGA, the value of time (private).

A housing analysis of ‘interest payable’ scenarios has been applied to median house values for new apartments (city), new homes (infill – middle ring), and house and land packages (greenfield, fringe).

Figure 2: 20 Year Household Costs - Mortgage Cost (Interest component) + Transport

Building Industry benefits

This study compares the building industry and state economic benefits of infill versus greenfield development. It compares similar housing types in a re-subdivision scenario versus a broad acre scenario (apartment development is not included given the complexities of separating out construction costs from overall development costs). Measured are:

1. The impact of construction activity – in terms of creating jobs through investment spending. The argument here is particularly strong if the case can be made that the activity does not displace private sector activity and/or is counter cyclical in nature;

2 Not intended to replace more sophisticated modelling approaches that have their own limitations.

8

2. The impacts on real wages for sections of the workforce by keeping pressure down on rents – therefore improving business competitiveness and improving economic outcomes.

3. Social benefits and associated economic outcomes.

See Figure 5 page 11 for a summary of the results of the analysis. It is important to note that the significant difference between infill and greenfield benefits is driven in part by the higher cost of constructing dwellings in infill locations (jobs can be directly related to the quantum of building expenditure) and the effective replacement rate of housing to achieve infill development, which for Adelaide has been observed to be 1.77 ‘net dwellings’ for every dwelling that is demolished/replaced.

By applying this approach it can be concluded where infill development in the middle ring could replace greenfield development, that:

Infill development would create 4800 more jobs per 1000 net dwellings than greenfield development.

Infill development would contribute $375m greater return to the state economy in labour and capital per 1000 net dwellings.

Infill development would contribute $197m greater increase in gross wages and incomes paid to building sector employees per 1000 net dwellings.

The development industry (Urban Development Institute of Australia, 2013) has stated a number of issues and barriers to infill development in Adelaide.

The main constraint to infill and redevelopment continues to be conservative planning rules. This is resulting in developer’s currently experiencing difficulty in delivering market-acceptable product (location, design and price) with higher intensity sites and sites with multi-dwellings in infill areas. The high cost to bring developable land and housing product to the market needs to be overcome. The uncertainty in the planning approval processes and the provision of core infrastructure is also a significant concern.

The infill sector contributes the greatest share of turnover, remains a significant employer and economic generator despite profit margins being lower than other types of development (i.e. apartments and greenfield development tend to deliver higher profit margins, as per NHSC, 2010). The infill sector generally supports small to medium enterprises not necessarily represented by peak bodies (see typical companies/builders in Appendix D: Typical Infill developers). This would suggest that Government has the opportunity to better engage with SME building companies and to work with bodies such as the MBA, UDIA and HIA to improve construction costs and remove barriers to infill development. This would further support the current drive for infill housing in the middle ring.

9

Figure 3: Infrastructure Costs.

10

Figure 4: Household Expenditure and Affordability Figure 4: Household Expenditure and Affordability.

11

Figure 5: Building Industry Benefits.

12

Other findings of this study

The report also examines key points relating to growth and makes the following observations:

Growth in Adelaide’s middle and inner suburbs (including the city) now accounts for approximately 70% of population growth. This is a significant shift since the early 1990’s from a position where population was actually falling in these locations. Bernard Salt (Salt, 2012) recently explained this phenomenon: Australian cities are no longer based on the traditional lines of income but rather on people’s value system (preferences in living location).

Adelaide has in recent years supported Australia’s cheapest middle ring housing located between 5 and 20 km from the CBD. It also has a significant capacity to grow the supply of infill development opportunities in these locations to meet this future demand. This presents a significant point of difference compared to other cities where population policies seek to attract a particular niche of young immigrants and students seeking an inner city lifestyle choice.

Recent analysis by DPTI has indicated a theoretical capacity of 240,000 infill opportunities across metropolitan Adelaide (this accounts for heritage zones in sensitive areas). This is on top of the current supply from major infill sites. It is reasonable to assume that between 30-50% of this capacity could be realised in actual housing over the next 30 years. When combined with approximately 25,000 dwellings that could potentially come from the Government’s ‘Inner Rim Growth Strategy’ and an additional 30,000 dwellings from the Capital City DPA, this will represent a supply of nearly 300,000 apartments and medium to high density dwellings of which 50% could potentially be developed.

Approximately 45% of this potential would need to be realised to fulfil the infill targets as outlined in the 30 Year Plan. Established areas like Playford, Port Adelaide/Enfield, Tea Tree Gully and Onkaparinga (outer metro councils) will have a more significant role to play in future year’s population growth, given their higher redevelopment potential.

There is little evidence of a land supply shortfall in Adelaide over the past decade that can adequately explain falling affordability on the periphery of the metropolitan area. There is an emerging view that rising house prices may have had a lot more to do with the policy and financial and institutional levers that fuel demand on a national scale (as opposed to a shortage of greenfield land supply). House prices have however increased in middle and inner ring locations driven in part by the supply to demand imbalance (driven by market demand).

Two alternative scenarios for the 30 Year Plan have been examined to test whether the 70:30 infill to greenfield ratio and land consumption rate assumptions are still valid. The analysis is based on higher observed infill development rates and higher ‘net’ greenfield yields and therefore effectively a higher overall gross development yield (15 dwellings per hectare which is similar to that achieved at Mawson Lakes). The assumptions for the two scenarios would presuppose that development ‘buffers’ that were built into the 30 Year Plan land consumption rates can be addressed (land banking, rezoning for other uses, contribution to open space/lot size etc.). The proportion of township development has been kept constant in our analysis. The results of the analysis indicate that there is an adequate supply of rezoned greenfield land on the metropolitan periphery (as a result of recent rezoning) to cater for the 30 Year Plan horizon, other than planned extensions to townships.

If we assume that infill development could be accelerated (driven by the market and/or through urban renewal policies) then one could sensibly assume at least 20,000 net dwellings can be redirected from greenfield to infill locations over the next 30 years (within the current metropolitan area – Scenario One compared to Scenario Two – see Chapter 5 for a description of these scenarios). These assumptions would not impact on township growth rates at 1300 dwellings per annum (as assumed within the 30 Year plan)

13

and one could assume the previous township boundaries with small extensions. Townships would also generally have lower augmentation costs as will be shown in Chapter 2.

Assume 20,000 dwellings can be redirected from greenfield to Infill development3 over 30 years

Benefits Net Present Value, 4% discount rate

Property industry jobs 97,000 jobs NA

Return to state economy in labour and capital

$7.6 billion $4.5 billion

Increase in gross wages and incomes paid to building sector employees

$4.0 billion $2.4 billion

Infrastructure cost savings (public and private sector investment)

4

$1.2 billion $730 million

Future policies to strengthen the infill drive could include:

affordable housing that is accessible to employment opportunities and that can be pursued through co-location planning policy, location efficient mortgages etc.;

more assertive zoning policies that better relate land stocks to end user (as opposed to speculator) demand;

regulations that allow denser development on amalgamated sites, (concessions);

site consideration of the accessibility of the site;

removal of inefficient constraints on development envelopes (especially discounting dated car parking rates) and;

use of innovative building techniques and construction systems and the adoption of infrastructure contribution formulae that reflect the true cost of providing services (road infrastructure and public transport).

Government could also revisit the 30 Year Plan assumptions to investigate whether the scale and rate of land consumption for greenfield development is appropriate. Rather than building these buffers into its risk profile, Government may want to consider a number of mitigating measures to ensure more reasonable land consumption rates and a higher target density (gross 10-15 dwellings/ha). Policies that could be considered include:

incremental rezoning mechanisms that drive provisional rezoning for residential purposes, i.e. land lots to be completed within a certain specified period (sequencing to prevent land banking);

legislative changes and a small area staging programme driving a contractual commitment between government and developers to reduce the land take for other land uses, other than preserving land for natural features;

in return the development industry may be given some concessions relating to open space requirements, stamp duty concessions etc.;

higher density targets (say 10-15 gross dwellings/hectare) that are adhered to i.e. Mawson Lakes is a case in point, at 16-18 dwellings per hectare (gross) where densities over 100 dwellings per hectare are achieved in their centre, balanced with lower density housing products. The overall infrastructure charge may be lower given the efficiency in land consumption;

3 Apartments, re-subdivisions, minor infill, major infill etc.,

4 Assuming median costs for infill versus greenfield development

14

Structure Planning to be detailed enough to ensure that the residential land component is delivered as zoned as per the precinct planning process. This allows a more definitive land use formulae to ensure 40-50% of zoned land is delivered as residential, and;

infrastructure sequencing tied to land staging.

More efficient broadacre land consumption and more effective use of infill sites is not to say that development should not occur in our regions, which form the back-bone of our economy. Small extensions to townships while protecting sensitive wine and agricultural areas are understandable given local job, social (retiring farmers, family formation and immigration etc.) and economic demand. Economic/employment self-sufficiency is paramount in townships and greenfield areas given the economic and social consequences of local traffic congestion and lack of services. There is a need to protect our regional resources for tourism, open space and food security. Regions define their cities and the way they function and connect to the community and visitors alike (the food and wine sector, our markets etc.).

The Government’s ‘urban renewal’ and reform agenda is aligned with the market demand for inner city living. If community expectations can be managed (small adjustments to planning policy to account for local concerns to protect heritage) there appears from this analysis to be ample capacity in the less sensitive parts of the metropolitan area (non- historic conservation areas) to meet population growth objectives. This approach would underpin the ‘locational preferences’ of a large proportion of young buyers, renters, immigrants and international investors (student market) that have access to the most affordable middle ring property of all Australian cities. It is a point of difference that Adelaide, it would appear has not capitalised on in the past, in its marketing for a greater share of the national migrant intake and retention of its young professionals.

Established areas like Playford, Port Adelaide/Enfield, Tea Tree Gully and Onkaparinga (outer metro councils) will have a role to play in population growth given their potential and the need to revitalise their centres (see Figure 19). The redevelopment potential of areas such as Elizabeth, Noarlunga and Christies Beach (for example) could contribute the lion’s share of infill growth in future years as capital to site value ratios of large and re-developable land parcels approach one. This is important given the need to revitalise centres and provide social and public transport services in these locations. The City of Onkaparinga which has less land supply in future years but to compensate has the most significant infill potential in Metropolitan Adelaide (57,600 theoretical new dwelling yield). This densification will more likely drive the urban renewal of centres such as Noarlunga.

There is a well observed body of evidence that the competitiveness of industries within a particular region is based on the advantages that pertain to its location; what might be called the advantages of proximity. These advantages are not simply the natural endowments, such as the soil, water and climate that originally attracted horticulture to Virginia and viticulture to our wine regions; they are also to do with the cumulative effects of that attraction. In other words, the presence of horticulture/viticulture, along with related activities and infrastructure, creates strategic opportunities for other horticultural businesses and support industries, which in turn make these regions even more attractive (or ‘agglomeration effects’). For this reason the consumption of agricultural land on Adelaide’s periphery has to be carefully managed.

The benefits of increasing metropolitan urban density through infill development (apartments, subdivisions and major infill projects) includes: more efficient use of current infrastructure (schools hospitals etc.); less Government subsidies of required infrastructure (‘head works’ in essence funded by tax-payers) and funding of public transport (better cost recovery ratios in dense cities); reduced social disadvantage usually associated with outer suburbs (with limited services), and business development (the agglomeration effects of bringing workers and businesses closer together).

15

Introduction

This study has been commissioned by the Department of Planning Transport and Infrastructure to examine the social and economic benefits of ‘greenfield’ versus ‘infill’ development. The analysis applies average and median industry figures, construction and running costs, parameters and information supplied by other studies, our own analysis, and recent ABS data and also benchmarking against other cities. The approach is considered a reasonable quantification, and representation, of the benefits and impacts of these two types of development.

The paper does not intend to stereotype greenfield or infill development as good or bad given that the benefits, costs and impacts of these two types of development can vary widely depending on where they are applied (city, inner and middle ring metropolitan areas, on the metropolitan periphery and in townships and peri-urban areas) and in what form. Both types of development have significantly contributed to housing choice and a broad housing market over the past few decades.

The recent discussions about urban renewal and density, urban sprawl and re-zoning on the metropolitan fringe raises fundamental questions for planners, legislators, state and local government agencies, community groups and residents. The purpose of this paper is to stimulate discussion and debate through examining many of the assumptions that sit behind statements and policies relating to affordability and land supply, household running costs, population growth and the impact of these two types of development on the building industry and local economy.

The definition of greenfield development generally encompasses non-productive land, habitats and productive farmland on the urban periphery (fringe development). In the Housing and Employment Land Supply Program Report (Department of Planning and Local Government, 2010) this is also commonly referred to as ‘broad acre’ land development which is generally located on the fringe of the metropolitan area or near townships.

Infill development can be defined in various ways including ‘urban consolidation’, ‘medium density housing’, ‘redevelopment’ or ‘high rise development’. Infill tends to be defined as: ‘the more intensive use of land for residential development in urban areas’. The HELSP (Department of Planning and Local Government, 2010) report defines it as the development of brownfields and greenfield sites; Major infill, more than 10 lots (such as Mawson Lakes and Northgate), TODs and transit corridors (Bowden being an example) and minor infill sites (dwelling sites created from the demolition of existing dwelling stock and replaced by one or more additional dwellings or the subdivision of existing land parcels).

16

Chapter 1. Shifting market demand

Housing market (buyer) preferences have significantly changed over the past 20 years. The greenfield development market on the metropolitan periphery still dominates many Australian cities given their relatively higher population rate, driving high middle and inner rim prices, and higher proportion of young buyers and immigrants seeking home ownership. Adelaide is not strongly aligned with the development pattern of other Australian cites for a number of different reasons as will be explained.

In 2009 the 30 Year Plan concluded that there was a theoretical land supply of 7-8 years left (of which only half was zoned for residential purposes). The greenfield land requirement was based on a number of assumptions relating to population growth and the share of infill to greenfield development to 2038. For a number of reasons this has not happened, despite the fact that population growth has been reasonably buoyant.

While a softening market is part of the cause, shifting buyer preferences may have also played a role, reflected by higher rates of infill development in the middle and inner ring suburbs. These locations are now supported by: government policies that assist urban renewal, property investment, affordable housing (compared to other cities), the attraction of main street precincts though small bar licences and quality urban design outcomes, gentrification by Baby Boomers, Generation ‘X and Y’ living preferences, overseas student preferences, improving public transport services, just to name a few. Some of these drivers will be examined further in this Chapter.

Population growth rates and preferences

Population growth in the middle and inner suburbs now accounts for about 70% of population growth. These locations around Adelaide’s centre and main streets are gentrifying at a much faster rate than previously predicted. For example, this represents a significant shift since the early 1990’s from a position where population was actually falling in these locations (the ‘donut’ effect) to now accounting for between 70-80% of population growth over the past decade (see Figure 6).

Figure 6: Long term (20 year) distribution of city, middle, outer and Hills/Barossa growth between 1992-2012, ABS, based on data at 2012 (before rebasing).

The recent release of a ‘rebased’ population series demonstrates a similar pattern with respect to the growth of the middle ring. Greenfields development has also grown commensurately with population growth as shown in Figure 7 below. Interestingly, city population growth contribution has been falling in more recent years.

17

Figure 7: The distribution of city, middle, outer and Hills/Barossa growth between 2002-2012, ABS, based on the new ‘rebased’ series, released 30 August, 2013.

Bernard Salt recently (Salt, 2012) suggested that Australian cities are no longer based on the traditional lines of income but rather on people’s value system. ‘There is a social progressiveness that links the inner-city with the comfortable and the conservative middle class, which suggests that young adults in both geographies (non – married versus married) are making non-traditional choices.5

Population Growth of Middle and Inner-Metropolitan Suburbs

Population growth in the middle ring6 has maintained a large share commensurate to population growth over the past 5 years as shown in Figure 8 (page 18). While outer and city growth rates have been higher their contribution to overall population growth has been lower. While a proportion of this growth can be attributed to economic conditions (i.e. Generation ‘Y’ youth are living at home for longer periods7), the infill development market appears to have also gained momentum. On average about 65 % of the total dwellings built between January 2005 and June 2008 were predominantly infill developments (gross turnover) - 2010 HELSP Report (Department of Planning and Local Government, 2010). Part of that infill came from re-subdivisions and redevelopment. Comparisons with previous studies indicate that the number of demolitions has increased over the last two decades from 700 in 1991 to 1,303 in 1999 and an annual average of 1,829 over the period (2004-2010) (Department of Planning Transport and Infrastructure, Adelaide Statistical Division, 2013)

5 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/in-brave-new-world-latte-line-cuts-the-ideological-divide/story-e6frg9jx-

1226530753302# 6 Middle ring is defined in Adelaide by distance and therefore as all councils between Salisbury and Marion (north to south)

and between the sea and hills face. The Outer area councils include Playford and Onkaparinga. 7 Gen Ys stuck at home for longer http://news.domain.com.au/domain/blogs/talking-property/gen-ys-stuck-at-home-for-

longer-20100503-u2ve.html

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012r

Rebased Population Series: Greater Adelaide - 2002-2012

Hills/Barossa/Fleurieu

Outer Metro

MiddleMetro

City

Source: ABS cat 3218.0 released 30 Aug 2013

30-Year Plan target

18

Figure 8: Recent Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data demonstrates the significance of the growing outer, middle and inner ring communities.

Land Supply and Affordability

The National Housing Supply Council’s (NHSC) State of Supply Reporting 2008- 2010 (see Figure 9, page 19) was a key feature in the Productivity Commission’s findings (2011) relating to Performance Benchmarking of Australian Business Regulation: Planning, Zoning and Development Assessments.

It highlighted a 228,000 dwelling undersupply Australia wide that would lead to a projected Australia wide gap of 663,000 dwellings by 2031. There were two key observations: (a) the gap did not represent the housing groups necessarily targeted by fringe development, despite the undersupply number often being held up as the key cause of falling housing affordability and a looming land crisis at the time of its release which coincided with the 30 Year Plan (2008/9), (b) more importantly, it did not indicate a housing shortfall for South Australia.

In 2011 the ABS Census confirmed fewer ‘households’ being formed relative to the number of vacant ‘houses’ in Australia than what previous estimates had assumed (ABS, Census of Populaton and Housing, 2011). In other words the projected undersupply stated in 2008/9 may have been grossly overstated and indeed would suggest an oversupply of housing in some cities. The NHSC in its publications appeared to tie underlying demand with housing type preferences and tenure rather than locational preferences. (The NHSC in more recent reports has referred to changing preferences of groups such as Baby Boomers and incoming migrants.

The NHSC does not appear to apply this stated shortfall in its reporting (National Housing Supply Council, 2010). The 2013 UDIA State of the Land Report in contrast still refers to the 228,000 undersupply and the projected Australia wide gap of 663,000 dwellings by 2031. (Urban Development Institute of Australia, 2013). The above analysis would suggest that this gap cannot be applied to the South Australian context.

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

CityMiddle

Outer

4268 22802

7269

3441

45584

21193

Population change of Adelaide's City, middle and outer boundaries

2001-2006 2006-2011

19

Figure 9: SA did not have a theoretical gap between housing demand and supply (Productivity Commission findings) standardised by population growth as at June 2009

It appears that lack of ‘housing supply’ (as opposed to ‘land supply’) and affordability is now more strongly associated with inner and middle ring suburbs tied to shifting preferences (amenity, lifestyle choices, living at home longer etc.). This reflects underlying ‘local’ demand as shown by the bar graph for the eastern and western suburbs (see Figure 10). It shows an imbalance is emerging between supply and demand in these locations while indications are that a surplus in land appears to be building on the fringe.

There is an emerging view that rising house prices (across Australian cities) over the past decade may have had a lot more to do with the policy and financial and institutional levers that fuel demand. This includes the availability of mortgage finance, low interest rates, first home buyers grants (several in the last decade), rising household incomes and wealth, employment, household formation and investment.

Adelaide’s Point of Difference - Housing Affordability in the Middle-Ring Suburbs

Recent research suggests that as ‘Generation Y’s’ grow up and become a bigger force in the residential property market in inner city locations during the next decade they will be one of the main groups that influence how our housing and suburbs work’. Urbis economics and market research have stated it would be those currently aged 18-32 who would make up half of Brisbane’s population by 2020 (seeking housing) who will put the most demand on the housing market. To quote8:

“In less than seven years, one of Australia’s largest population groups will be moving out of the family home and into independent living as 60 per cent of the generation Y demographic will be aged between 25 and 36 years of age”. “A lift in overseas migration had helped to swell the ranks of gen Y as a large majority of migrants were aged between 20 and 35”. “Due to housing affordability in the areas where they really want to live, in the early years generation Y will opt to purchase an apartment or townhouse in Brisbane’s middle ring suburbs or rent an apartment in the inner city”. ``They are a product of their time; they want low maintenance, walkability and trying to balance that all within the cost of living.’’

Rivera (Urbis): ‘houses were not going to be the preferred option for many as it was too expensive. Apartments were an easy entry point, low maintenance and in the location they were after. As the opportunities to develop housing close to the city were becoming scarcer’. ``We will see more infill (development) in the middle ring,’’ … “Brisbane is really well placed for this change, because we have got some good fundamentals” (Urbis, 2013)

8 John Riviera (URBIS, source Courier Mail, June 17, 2013), http://www.news.com.au/realestate/buying/gen-y-to-fire-up-a-market-in-

flux/story-fndban6l-1226665134452

20

Figure 10: The supply imbalance has been focussed on the inner rim and middle suburbs reflecting underlying demand/housing preferences. (Cumulative estimated dwelling supply and demand balance, by SAGR, over 15 years from 2009-2010

While Brisbane is well placed, Adelaide has in more recent years held Australia’s cheapest middle ring real estate (see Figure 11). This does question whether economic and population development policies targeting immigration are aligned with this opportunity. This is contrary to a view that land availability on the fringe and housing affordability are strongly tied and that the decline in a rolling supply of land will threaten the strong comparative advantage Adelaide has traditionally held compared to other Australian cities. Perhaps this is only partly the case for Adelaide for a niche market.

There is also significant capacity in Adelaide’s middle ring to meet this demand as will be shown in Chapter 5. Metropolitan Capacity. If this could be unlocked through the current Urban Renewal Agenda it is likely to have a positive impact on population growth as migrants and young home-buyers seek affordable housing near main streets and in established areas. This will not diminish land development in greenfield locations that seek a different market niche including other migrant sectors (based on anecdotal evidence). A key challenge for planners and developers will be that urban space is at a premium in inner suburban areas where open and housing space is in demand and where affordability is falling, albeit not as fast as other cities as shown below.

The geography of Adelaide, bordered by the sea to the west and hills to the east, has over time led development to stretch north-south along the coast, putting the metropolitan fringe at a great distance from the CBD compared to other Australian cities. For example, new growth areas could be located as far as 50-60 km from the CBD. This is significantly further than recently rezoned greenfield locations in the north and south and significantly more than cities competing for this market niche (Melbourne’s metropolitan greenfield – periphery development is located only 30-35 km from the city, Epping North as an example).

The middle and inner ring housing market (10-30 km from the CBD) in Adelaide is significantly more affordable compared to other capital cities while new house prices on the city fringe in most capital cities tend to converge (as shown below by the meeting of price curves beyond 40 km).

The National dwelling cost study (Urbis, May 2011) confirms this consistency in greenfield land and construction costs across all capital cities (within $20,000 except for Sydney, where Government charges are significant). This observation is in spite of there being a large difference in land supply between cities as

A need to further re-zone or provide policies to support middle and inner

ring demand

The surplus in the Northern suburbs in 2013 is considerably higher than indicated here (2009).

21

previously shown. Indeed, house and land prices on the fringe have increased in price more consistently across Australian cities than inner metropolitan locations.

Figure 11: House prices in thousands of dollars for each Australian Capital by distance from the CBD (km), Reserve bank of Australia, 2011).

The study by the Reserve Bank of Australia in 2011 in Urban Structure and Housing Prices: Some Evidence from Australian Cities (Kulish Mariano, 2011) made some interesting observations (to quote):

‘There have been a number of important demand-side factors, most importantly the lower average level of nominal interest rates in the inflation-targeting period and the greater availability of credit stemming from financial deregulation.’

‘Many observers, including in the development industry, have pointed to difficulties in the construction of medium- and high-density housing close to the CBD. In the context of the model, this would be consistent with a range of factors, including a shortage of appropriately zoned land, driving up development costs. Towards the city fringe, these factors could also be weighing on the economics of new construction, with poor transport infrastructure also affecting households’ willingness to buy at more distant locations. Together, to the extent that these factors have driven up the cost of new housing and reduced its supply, they could be expected to have also increased the price of the existing stock of housing.’ Interestingly (my italics), the shortage of appropriately zoned land is not an issue for Adelaide as will be shown in Chapter 5. Indeed, the infill development industry continues to be more buoyant in Adelaide as shown previously in this chapter.

The analysis would suggest that falling housing affordability in Adelaide cannot be strongly associated with a perceived land supply shortage. Again, demand drivers being the more likely reason for house prices increases on the metropolitan periphery over the past decade while the shortfall in housing supply versus demand is a key driver in middle and inner metropolitan locations.

22

Chapter 2. Infrastructure Costs

There are numerous studies that measure the capital and recurrent costs of physical and social infrastructure; relating to ‘greenfield’ and ‘infill’ development. This chapter reviews this literature as well as Adelaide case studies to assess the total community costs of developing infill versus greenfield areas.

While cities like Adelaide are not growing fast, there is a need to seek creative ways to fund infrastructure projects (off balance sheet, infrastructure bonds and superannuation funds). There is a view that greenfield development comes at a substantially higher infrastructure cost, because of the need for new suburban roads, new trunk water and sewer lines and processing facilities, power (sub stations and plants) and communication systems. Government has traditionally provided these physical ‘head works’ as well as basic community services such as town centres, health care facilities, schools, emergency services, police, public transport and recreation reserves. In contrast, these services and infrastructure partly or wholly exist within infill locations and may support spare capacity. Evidence suggests that these infrastructure items can be provided at a comparatively lower infrastructure cost at infill locations because it is cheaper to ‘augment’ existing systems, compared to greenfield developments. In practice the level of infrastructure capacity at infill locations varies widely as does the density of development in greenfield (creating economies of scale and lowering the infrastructure cost per lot). For example, Mawson Lakes is a successful example of high density development on a greenfield site, albeit it could also be deemed an infill site given its location. Therefore, the comparisons are complex and need to be location and development specific, and considerate of infrastructure that is already in place and its catchment. The cost of servicing each block (or lot) of land or dwelling can therefore vary widely across the metropolitan area.

Charging for these items include physical (economic) and social infrastructure, including ‘piped’ services such as water, sewerage, drainage, gas, electricity, and communication; suburban roads and a share of the arterial roads; health, education, and community service costs.

For greenfield projects, major economic and social infrastructure items (such as major roads, energy infrastructure, schools and hospitals) are typically located ‘off-site’ while basic economic infrastructure such as local reticulation infrastructure and assets to connect new developments to the existing infrastructure network are located within the subdivision (with benefits accruing overwhelmingly to the subdivision residents).

Infill developments (where major infrastructure is already in place), may require enhancements to the capacity of the existing infrastructure network to accommodate the additional demand associated with higher density development such as wider roads, upgraded (or new) main water pipes, treatment plants, storage facilities or pumps (Performance Benchmarking of Australian Business Regulation: Planning, Zoning and Development Assessments,). (Productivity Commission, 2011).

The question of “who pays” or how it should be funded (infrastructure bonds versus Government debt funding) is a key point of discussion. Funding will be generally met by a combination of the developer, local government (councils) and/or state government (generally tax payers). One view is that areas with excess infrastructure capacity should be identified for urban renewal given that it will not impact on Government’s annual budget and/or that developers should not have to pay the capital contributions for the expansion of infrastructure where this exists.

The use of this infrastructure tends to be on a user pays basis and/or is subsidised by the general tax payer. The under-utilisation of inner city infrastructure and the services they often provide can be reflected in Governments having to subsidise the gap between their use and recurrent cost. For example, the poor cost recovery of public transport or, under use of school assets. On the contrary, given the cost to tax payers of subsidising infrastructure on the metropolitan fringe within a constrained budget one view is that debt funding by government of this style of development is unsustainable into the long term.

23

Infrastructure and the diminishing value or economic life of assets is another compounding problem plaguing Government budgets; one that can be partly attributed to the rapid expansion of housing development and infrastructure in the 60’s and 70’s. This is financially challenging for such a small State budget. Local governments, who traditionally prepared their budgets on a simple cash flow basis, are now compelled to fund the depreciation of these assets. An upfront or progressive increase in rates and levies is now thought of as necessary to replace assets when they reach the end of their useful life.

Charging Ranges – Productivity Commission Report, 2011

Greenfield infrastructure charges are generally much more significant than infill developments, particularly in Sydney, Melbourne and Perth. Sydney had the highest residential infrastructure charges imposed on developers at an average of $37 300 per lot (2009-10) for greenfield developments (public sector costs only), which also covered the broadest range of infrastructure items. Brisbane’s charges have risen significantly to be the second highest in 2009-2010 (at about $27 000 per greenfield lot). Adelaide charges for the narrowest range of infrastructure items and has the lowest charges though unusually, the average infill charge ($5577) was higher than the average greenfield charge ($3693). Sydney has pursued a full cost recovery approach to infrastructure (applied to a wider range of infrastructure items including major roads, rail, social and recreational infrastructure) and this resulted in much higher charges. (Productivity Commission, 2011). Timeframes established for the delivery of planned infrastructure are important to the effectiveness of land use planning. For example, the creation of a new suburb may be dependent on the extension of a trunk road or interchange. Uncertainty around the timing of the delivery of that infrastructure can see the creation of that suburb delayed as planners fear leaving the suburb disconnected from the rest of the city to the disadvantage of those who move there (Productivity Commission, 2011).

Lack of connecting public transport and local congestion (as a result of this infrastructure) is a significant issue on the outskirts of Melbourne where the cumulative congestion costs (by 2026) in the growth councils is estimated to be approximately $42 billion. In contrast, the cost of providing key infrastructure over this period ($9.5 billion) represents just 23% of the cumulative congestion costs. For Adelaide, without the provision of more local jobs on the metropolitan periphery, better community services and enhanced transport options, a similar gap is likely to appear over time in some locations (in the Adelaide Hills for example given the constraints of the South Eastern Freeway).

Infrastructure Costs (see assumptions in Appendix A)

Given the variation of infrastructure costs between cities, as well as locations across the metropolitan area (inner urban, peri-urban and greenfield) the research has been drawn from a range of sources. Two approaches have been applied:

A. Current case studies of development in greenfield locations on the periphery of Adelaide. B. Bench marking against other Australian cities given there is a reasonable consistency in the

style of development and infrastructure costs, notwithstanding local differences that add to these costs.

This study has concluded that greenfield development costs are reasonably consistent between locations on the fringe of Adelaide as well as between cities. The average cost per lot for the more reliable sources was as follows:

The median cost of greenfield development in the northern area is approximately $88,900 per lot based on our analysis on data supplied by DPTI, see Appendix A.

Mount Barker has a lower infrastructure cost at $61,900 per lot. It does however, not require reserves, levees, acoustic barriers and neighbourhood centres.

Previous studies comparing cities have also been included and indexed to 2013 costs. One of these studies (SGS Economics and Planning Pty Ltd., May, 2003) indicated a cost of $84,300 per lot for Adelaide.

24

The Sydney average (based on charges) which is the only city that seeks to recover the broadest range of infrastructure items is $79,800 per lot (indexed to 2013).

It would be reasonable to apply a greenfield infrastructure cost which is the median of three suburbs contained within the Playford Area $80,500 per lot ($72-89,300 range) and Mt. Barker at $61,900 per lot.

The cost of infrastructure at Infill locations has been far more difficult to ascertain and is therefore presented as a range and benchmarked against other capital cities:

Sydney average (based on charges) which is the only city that seeks to recover the broadest range of infrastructure items is $15,300 per lot (indexed to 2013).

The highest cost recovery in Victoria (Moreland City) is $18,300 per lot. However, this does not appear to include trunk infrastructure.

The infill cost is approximately $20,000 per dwelling however this does not include local government sponsored projects and the investment level outlined in more recent announcements. Given the reported cost, as per the Productivity Commission findings for Adelaide (Productivity Commission, 2011) that are primarily related to local government charges or recouped to Councils i.e. open space ($5577) the total cost could be as high as $24,000. To this end it would be reasonable to apply a range for infill - infrastructure cost of $15,000-25,000 (with an average of $20,000) per ‘net dwelling’ given dwellings can be created through a number of ways including re-subdivision.

The challenge in applying these benchmarks is that infrastructure costs are heavily dependent on area-specific factors. For instance road costs differ between development areas based on the necessity for major arterial roads and connections such as the second interchange at Mount Barker. Downstream effects such as the widening of Glen Osmond Road may or may not be included in these arguments depending on how far the impact catchment and to the extent that ‘apportionment principles’ apply. The Northern Expressway has already been constructed for the northern region but also delivers metropolitan wide and industry benefits. It has not been included into any infrastructure costing at a local level for new development in the northern region. However, freeways, overpasses and interchanges may be needed in other regions. In many cases ‘it can make up 50% of the cost difference between the two iconic development forms’ (SGS Economics and Planning Pty Ltd., May, 2003). The cost of sewerage and water infrastructure also varies widely depending on terrain and trenching conditions as well as system capacity and thresholds. Waste processing requirements (Bolivar augmentation required) and major water supply for the Northern Region forms over 50% of the cost of providing infrastructure to fulfil the Playford Growth Area Structure Plan. (Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, May, 2013) ‘Trigger’ points and thresholds therefore form an important part of the analysis and could make a significant difference to the infrastructure cost outcome. For example without further expansion to the north of Gawler, small extensions to the metropolitan area such as Playford may not ‘trigger’ the augmentation of Bolivar, to be concluded. Therefore, infrastructure components will differ depending on the level and degree of excess capacity and how catchment sizes are determined. To this end the costs provided by this study could be lower or higher than the ranges presented and subject to a more thorough assessment on a case by case basis. The diagram on page 25 represents the above argument diagrammatically using current cost estimates (case studies and bench-marking).

25

Figure 12: Graphical summary of the range of infrastructure costs of 'infill' versus ' greenfield' development (solid bar range is based on Adelaide case studies, other are indicative)

30 Year Plan Infrastructure Costs

In simple terms, applying the above assumptions, the infrastructure cost of greenfield development for 124,000 dwellings over the stated period in the 30 Year Plan is expected to be $8.6 billion based on the above analysis9 (Present Value $5.4 billion, Discount rate 4%)

The infrastructure cost of infill development for 134, 000 dwellings over the stated 30 years is expected to be $2.7 billion based on the above analysis (Present Value $1.5 billion, Discount rate 4%).

Note: traffic congestion is building in the middle ring suburbs as urban densities increase, partly relating to parking policies (minimum requirements in development plans) that drive car dependency. Without policy changes and required infrastructure including public transport, cycling and walking investment as outlined in the recent Integrated Transport and Land Use Plan the cost of congestion is expected to be considerable in future years. To this end either externalities (impacts) or the part of the investment of addressing congestion on both the metropolitan fringe and in middle and inner ring locations should be included in more detailed, future analysis.

Public sector costs have historically represented approximately 40% of total costs. If Government did not apply an infrastructure charging approach the cost to Government could be reasonably be assumed to be 40% of the above values.

9 Assume $80,500 per lot in greenfield locations and $45,000 per lot in townships given there is some existing

capacity and infrastructure assumed

26

Chapter 3. Household expenditure and affordability

Over the past decade the issue of housing affordability has tended to focus on the recurrent cost of mortgage repayments and how this impacts on household expenditure (mortgage repayments that exceed 30% of total household income are said to cause housing stress). Transport costs form the second largest component of household expenditure (approximately 15% in Australia) (ABS, Household Expenditure Survey, SA, 2009/10). A more complete measure of affordability is combining housing and transportation costs. In the United States this is referred to as the ‘H+T Affordability Index’ and is said to measure the ‘true affordability and location efficiency’10 (Center for Neighborhood Technology, Current).

The transport cost component of a household budget is generally far higher in metropolitan fringe locations reflecting higher car ownership rates and the need to travel further to reach social and economic needs. Car dependence is exacerbated where there is a shortfall in public transport and a lack of employment in an area. Public transport in the fringe locations of Adelaide tends to be less accessible and less frequent than middle and inner ring locations. In Mount Barker over 50% of workers leave the township every morning for work outside of the LGA (ABS 2011). Employment self-sufficiency and urban density can make a significant difference to car dependence. For example, in the City of Adelaide only 34% of workers travel to work by car compared to 72% in Mount Barker. Close to 40% of employed city dwellers cycle or walk to work (ABS, 2011). Lower rates of car ownership have also been observed along Adelaide’s fixed public transport lines (rail and tram – see also Figure 15).

In locations such as the City of Whittlesea on Melbourne’s fringe over 70% of workers travel to work outside of the council area. Recent analysis by Infraplan (developing Council’s integrated transport strategy) found that motorists now encounter congestion far earlier in their journey which can be largely attributed to infrastructure funding gaps (lack of freeway interchanges, narrow trunk road etc.). And this is worsening as infrastructure spending is failing to keep up to infrastructure needs.

This chapter examines household transportation costs and how these combine with household rental or mortgage repayments to impact on overall affordability.

Housing affordability and pricing

An assessment of new dwelling prices has been undertaken for both greenfield and infill locations across Metropolitan Adelaide. While not exhaustive (and limited to analysis at the time of this study) it provides a sufficient sample size to make some interesting observations. The assessment includes 2 and 3 bedroom homes and city apartments (see Figure 13 and Appendix B: Housing cost assumptions for details). The following has been observed:

Middle ring: New two bedroom homes cost approximately $420,000 while a 3 bedroom home will cost around $470,000. Two bedroom homes as low as $270,000 (home and land) can be found within the middle ring.

Outer and Metropolitan periphery: Adelaide’s greenfield home and land packages are less expensive on average with a median price at around $300,000 (3 bedroom house and land package). Two bedroom homes have median price of $225,000 and can be as low as $190,000 (home and land) - can be found at Elizabeth Park.

Despite this significant difference in price, the middle and inner ring housing market is very attractive given current low interest rates and possibly the investment opportunity that this market presents (greater quantum returns). Adelaide has the most affordable infill development located within 5-20 km of the CBD compared to any other capital city as previously discussed.

10

http://htaindex.cnt.org/

27

Nevertheless, demand for greenfield house and land packages continue to support a diverse market.

New 2 bedroom city apartments have a higher median price ($443,000) compared to middle and inner ring locations. Importantly, 3 bedroom middle ring housing in Adelaide is competitively priced in the middle ring providing strong competition for the apartment market. This sets Adelaide apart from other cities that have comparatively higher priced middle ring property.

Figure 13: Typical new house prices in Adelaide (Source: web, September 2013)

28

Spread of Housing Prices on the Metropolitan Fringe

House and land packages are significantly cheaper on the fringes of metropolitan Adelaide than within the inner suburbs. Packages can start from around $170,000 for a 2-bedroom house with a single garage to around $229,000 for a three bedroom house (see below for examples). Land can also be purchased separately starting from around $88,000 for an allotment of 182m2.

Table 1: House and land prices and land size within new developments on Adelaide’s metropolitan periphery.

Development name Description

H & L package

Land price from

Land size (min)

Land size (max)

Aspire at

Evanston South

3-br house, single garage (Sterling Homes).

$249,870 $138,000 270m2 -

Orleana Waters, Evanston Gardens

3-br house, single garage (Devine Homes).

$252,900 $129,000 210m2 600m2

Almond Grove, Munno Para

2-br house, single garage (Fairmont Homes).

$176,423 $94,000 182m2 653m2

Abode,

Munno Para West

(Devine Homes) $211,900 $110,000 300m2 717m2

Lakeside,

Andrews Farm

3-br house, double carport. (Devine Homes)

$229,900 $103,500 210m2 600m2

Playford Alive 3-br house, double garage, $138,000 (excludes land).

- $84,950 230m2 -

Blakeview Grove, Blakeview

3-br house, double garage (Fairmont Homes)

$276,500 $135,000 300m2 1900m2

The Summit,

Mount Barker

3-br house, single garage (Devine Homes).

$332,900 $179,000 600m2 1237m2

Bluestone,

Mount Barker

3-br house, single carport (Integrity New Homes).

$324,250 $149,950 395m2 1370m2

Mawson Green, Meadows

4-br house, double garage (Devine Homes).

$393,900 $165,000 800m2 1800m2

South at

Seaford Meadows

2-br house, single garage (Fairmont Homes)

$170,403 $88,000 182m2 1097m2

Transport Costs

Car ownership rates vary considerably across these sectors. The following observations can be made from ABS data (2011):

Councils where more than 50% of households have two or more cars include Burnside, Prospect, Walkerville and Mitcham. These are also the most affluent councils (highest household income).

Middle ring Councils that support the bulk infill growth indicate more than 50% of households own 1 or less cars. This includes Charles Sturt, Marion, Port Adelaide Enfield, and West Torrens.

Higher density councils such as Norwood, Payneham, St Peters, Holdfast Bay and Unley (where density is approaching 3000 persons per square km) have more frequent and connecting bus or trams services and therefore more than 50% of households have 1 or less cars.

The City of Adelaide is a unique case where 32% and 45% of households have no cars or one car respectively. This demonstrates the benefits of both job self-sufficiency and urban density.

29

Almost all outer area councils indicate more than 50% of homes owning 2 or more cars, (irrespective of income) with Mount Barker residents at 65%, underpin the strong established car dependence. Playford is the exception with more than 10% of households with no cars, with a large proportion of the community who use public transport as a ‘social safety net’!

Table 2: Percentage of households reflecting car ownership (ABS, 2011)

Outer Fringe – Percentage of Households with car ownership 0 cars 1 car 2+ cars

Adelaide Hills 2.4% 25.5% 72.1%

Gawler 8.6% 39.1% 52.3%

Mount Barker 4.5% 30.4% 65.1%

Onkaparinga 6.2% 36.2% 57.6%

Playford 12.6% 38.8% 48.6%

Salisbury 8.3% 38.8% 52.9%

Tea Tree Gully 5.4% 34.8% 59.9%

Housing Plus Transport Costs Over 20 Years

An analysis of the impact of transportation on household budgets has been applied using a number of assumptions (see Appendix C: Transportation Cost assumptions) including: average weekly running costs of small to large vehicles as per RAA sources, (RAA) metro public transport ticket costs, ‘Journey to Work’ information relating to average journey distances to work by LGA, the value of time (private) based on the RTA Economic Analysis Manual (Road Transport Authority, 2011).

A housing analysis of ‘interest payable’ scenarios has been applied to median house values for new apartments (city), new homes (infill – middle ring), and house and land packages (greenfield, fringe). The results are presented below:

Table 3: Breakdown of analysis demonstrating mortgage interest and transport costs

20 Year household impact (H+T)

(non-discounted)

Dwelling Cost (median price -

new homes)

Total Interest Repayment (over 20 years) (5.88%

interest)

Transport Cost (over 20 yr)

Household Expenditure

Total

City Apartments 2 Bedroom

$ 443,000 $ 311,000 $ 268,000 $ 579,000

Middle Ring Housing 2 Bedroom

$ 363,000 $ 255,000 $ 306,000 $ 561,000

Middle Ring Housing 3 Bedroom

$ 471,000 $ 331,000 $ 306,000 $ 637,000

Fringe Housing 2 Bedroom

$ 225,000 $ 158,000 $ 524,000 $ 682,000

Fringe Housing 3 Bedroom

$ 300,000 $ 211,000 $ 524,000 $ 735,000

30

When mortgage interest costs are combined with transport costs over a 20 year timeframe, the total real cost (excluding the principal component) is higher on the metropolitan periphery. When the principal is combined, this gap closes. If other transport costs and externalities are included, the gap widens (see discussion under ‘The Inclusion of Externalities on page 32). While the principal could be included, home buyers also make ‘investment’ choices when buying in some locations. For these reasons the analysis only includes the ‘interest repayment’ component and direct transport costs. Apartment living (where no car is required) or inner city living (middle ring) where either one car or no car is required, and where the journey to work trip is assumed to be met by public transport by at least one householder, expenditure could be up to $200,000 lower over 20 years (or just over $10,000 in savings per annum).

Figure 14: House mortgage and transport costs over 20 years

H + T Affordability Index

The H+T Index was developed by CNT and its partner, the Center for Transit Oriented Development (CTOD), (Center for Neighborhood Technology, Current) as a project of the Brookings Institution's Urban Markets Initiative. The H+T Index recommends a new view of affordability, one defined as combined housing and transportation costs consuming no more than 45 %of household income. Infraplan is currently developing this index for all Australian cities which can be presented spatially (see Figure 15). The measure is similar to the widely used Vulnerability Assessment for Mortgage, Petrol and Inflation Risks and Expenditure (VAMPIRE) Index but applies costs rather than a set of weightings (AbleyTransportation, 2013).

The housing costs applied are rental payments collected from Australia wide databases (RP Data (CoreLogic, 2013)and other sources) while transport costs are based on car ownership rates at the Collector District level. The average Adelaide household income (just over $45,000 per annum in 2006) has been applied to assess which areas would experience housing stress (above 45% of total income). Affordable locations align with infill capacity and areas surrounding Adelaide’s mass transit public transport system (tram and train) given the lower propensity to own a car(s).

31

Figure 15: H+T Analysis (Infraplan) demonstrating rising household stress (rental and transport costs) for yellow, orange and red locations

Suburbs near tram/rail lines (TOD’s) demonstrated the no housing stress (green below 45% of average Adelaide income) – see inset

Data based on ABS, 2006

Figure 15: H+T Analysis (InfraPlan)

Figure 15: H+T Analysis (Infraplan) demonstrating rising household stress (rental and transport costs) for yellow, orange and red locations

Suburbs near tram/rail lines (TOD’s) demonstrated the no housing stress (green below 45% of average Adelaide income) – see inset

Data based on ABS, 2006

32

The Inclusion of Externalities

Transportation is a derived need, meaning that people typically travel for some purpose other than for the simple reason of traveling, yet Australian cities are reaching an expansiveness necessitating many residents to commit upwards of an hour or two daily for commuting purposes. The embodied private, public, and external costs associated with the proliferation of roadways are substantial and have largely been driven by auto dependence, a by-product of fringe development. (Roman Trubka, 2012)

There are a number of studies that consider the wider cost of transport and other externalities (somewhat different to measuring direct transport and housing costs). Costs can include infrastructure provision, transportation costs, greenhouse gas emissions, and inactivity-related health costs.

A recent study (Roman Trubka, 2012) used 22 studies from the United States, Canada, and Australia on infrastructure costs associated with inner, middle, and outer city developments. Transportation costs were drawn from a previous study by Newman and Kenworthy (J.R Kenworthy, 1992) that reported annual costs associated with private vehicle depreciation and operating costs, annual road infrastructure costs, transit costs, time costs, and externalities. The annual costs were inflated to 2007 prices and then capitalised over a 50-year period.

The present value of annually recurring transportation costs for an inner city and fringe development were valued at $257,000 and $507,000 respectively per dwelling.

Interestingly, the direct infrastructure costs were $50,000 (Inner) versus $136,000 (Outer) per dwelling. These costs are significantly higher than those presented in Chapter 2.

Table 4: Estimate Development Costs per 1000 dwellings (indexed to 2013, CPI ABS)

Inner Outer

Up-front Infrastructure Costs 2013 2013

Roads $ 5,696,949 $ 34,024,347

Water and Sewerage $ 16,517,330 $ 25,062,754

Telecommunications $ 2,885,239 $ 4,157,273

Electricity $ 4,571,971 $ 10,860,086

Gas $ - $ 4,133,744

Fire and Ambulance $ - $ 338,810

Police $ - $ 435,026

Education $ 4,362,913 $ 37,124,947

Health (Hospitals etc.) $ 22,528,651 $ 36,229,006

Re-occurring Costs/Operating Costs over 50 years

Transport & Travel Time $ 241,654,204 $ 400,839,775

Roads & Parking $ 54,916,916 $ 181,146,531

Externalities $ 3,935,500 $ 11,355,293

Greenhouse Gas $ 20,344,224 $ 42,942,804

Health (from activity)

Direct $ - $ 2,261,713

Indirect $ - $ 2,687,330

TOTAL $ 377,413,898 $ 793,599,438

33

Chapter 4. Building industry benefits

This study compares the building industry and state economic benefits of infill versus greenfield development. It compares similar housing types in a re-subdivision scenario versus a broad acre scenario (apartment development not included, given the complexities of separating out construction costs from overall development costs). Development costs relating to land purchase, professional fees, design and financing have a different set of economic multipliers that are generally lower than the direct and flow on costs of construction. For this reason they have not been included.

The methodology applied to measure the impact on economic activity from investment resulting from housing construction has drawn from a report by the University of Adelaide (Stimulating South Australia, Public Housing in SA - the wider impact of the Australian Government’s stimulus package - verbatim in italics) (Public Service Association, August, 2009):

1. The impact of construction activity – in terms of creating jobs through the investment spending. The argument here is particularly strong if the case can be made that the activity does not displace private sector activity and/or is counter cyclical in nature.

2. The impacts on real wages for sections of the workforce by keeping pressure down on rents – therefore improving business competitiveness and improving economic outcomes.

3. Social benefits and associated economic outcomes.

While the input-output modelling (IO) framework or use of a Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) model are suggested by the paper it applies the former because:

An input output model provides estimates of the impact that the expenditure shocks will

have. It is argued that at the state level, because supply side constraints are less binding than

at the national level (labour can migrate into and out of the state, capital is controlled in a

national and international market) IO models will provide similar predictions as to long term

implications for employment and GSP impacts as will CGE models, and therefore IO models

are sufficient for gaining an impression of the level of activity resulting from given projects.

Further it is noted that in the current economic situation the concept of Keynesian multipliers

(and policy responses) are more valid than in times of relatively full employment even at the

national level (i.e. the supply constraints are less binding and there is less crowding out). The

modelling in this study is undertaken using the input-output table that underlies the RISE

model operated by the SA Department of Trade and Economic Development

This would imply that benefits cannot be double counted but they can be compared with each other with respect to their impact (i.e. will typical infill development deliver more or less benefits compared to greenfield development for the same level of expenditure?)

Multipliers for South Australia derived from IO tables for 2006-07 (ABS, 2006/7) are given in

Table 5 (an updated version based on the report). The definition of the multipliers is firstly the

measure, as follows:

• GSP or value added – this shows the increase in value added in $million (returns to labour and capital) for a $1 million increase in final demand in the sector.

• Household Income – the increase in gross wages and incomes paid to employee.

34

• Employment – the increase in the number of full time equivalent jobs created or supported by every $1 million of final demand in the sector.

The total multiplier is broken down to component parts as follows (described for GSP or value added multipliers:

• Initial – for every $1 million of final demand on residential building there is $0.2757 million worth of value added created in building companies.

• First Round – for every $1 million of final demand on residential building there is $0.2326 million worth of value added created in suppliers to the building companies – this will include construction trade services, and also in products such as cement and timber, and business services, such as accounting.

• Industrial Support – for every $1 million of final demand on residential building there is $0.1955 million worth of value added created in flow-ons through industry linkages; the construction trade services also buy inputs from other industry sector (so a timber supplier will buy from the forestry sector, a concrete supplier from the mining sector etc.) and this flows through.

• Consumption Induced – the labour employed in each of the rounds above will spend on consumption items, and therefore create or induce further employment in retail, in hospitality, in education etc., and for every $1 million of final demand on residential building there is $0.3900 million worth of value added created in the economy through this flow through effect.

These impacts mean that for every $1 million in final demand spent on residential building there is a total of $1.09 million added to value added (or Gross State Product) in South Australia.

Table 5: South Australian IO Multipliers

Initial First round Industrial Support

Consumption induced

Total

GSP or Value Added Multiplier

Residential building 0.2757 0.2326 0.1955 0.3900 1.0937

Other construction 0.2196 0.2577 0.2023 0.3428 1.0224

Construction Trade Services

0.4088 0.1902 0.1648 0.5157 1.2795

Economy Average 0.4842 0.1686 0.1158 0.3955 1.1641

Household Income Multiplier

Residential building 0.1586 0.1758 0.1342 0.1951 0.6637

Other construction 0.0841 0.1906 0.1372 0.1715 0.5834

Construction Trade Services

0.3541 0.1495 0.1160 0.2580 0.8776

Economy Average 0.2913 0.1090 0.0749 0.1978 0.6730

Employment Multiplier

Residential building 2.06 2.99 2.15 3.88 11.08

Other construction 1.94 3.18 2.20 3.41 10.74

Construction Trade Services

6.78 2.57 1.86 5.14 16.33

Economy Average 5.38 1.84 1.19 3.94 12.35

These multipliers enable us to make a judgement about the relative stimulatory effect of expenditure on housing compared with the symmetry effect of expenditure in other sectors. The multipliers for South Australia indicate that residential building is ‘middle ranked’ in terms of its symmetry effect on economic activity. The Initial impact is relatively low but this is offset to some extent by first round impacts (which would be mostly purchases from

35

construction trade services) and results therefore in about average employment outcomes directly on housing supply, and subsequent flow on impacts.

Economic Impact of the Two Development Typologies

While there are numerous housing industry niches that could be examined (various combinations of house and land packages and various infill types - two for one, three for one, battle-axe etc.) the study will focus on the examples presented by the National Housing Supply Council (Urbis, May 2011) as ‘typical’ development for every capital city. The Urbis study justifies its small sample size: collating the individual costs involved in delivering greenfield and infill housing product … cost components are consistent across locations so that cost differences between cities can be identified and understood.

Given the variety of types of minor and major infill development types this study has applied an average yield increase based on the HELSP Report. (Department of Planning and Local Government, 2010) The research shows that between 2005 and 2008 approximately 1800 demolitions a year took place and that there were 3200 new dwellings delivered (a net gain of 1400 dwellings). Thus a replacement ratio of 1.77 has been applied as the ‘middle’ scenario (and typical construction cost as per Urbis national study). An upper rate of 2.0 dwellings per allotment could sensibly be applied given that apartments would contribute a far higher yield if included in these calculations. A low scenario could be assumed to be the construction cost of a dwelling if it were assumed to be the same as a greenfield location.

Table 6: The middle 'total construction cost' per infill development has been adjusted shown accordingly to 566 million per 1000 net dwellings.

36

Figure 16: Typical infill development in Seaton / Hindmarsh, one net dwelling (Source, Urbis)

Table 7: Infill development calculations - Economic benefits per 1000 net dwellings (middle scenario)

Initial First Round Industrial Support

Consumption Induced

Total

GSP or Value Added Impact ($ m)

273 95 65 223 $ 657 m

Housing Income Impact ($ m)

164 62 42 112 $ 380 m

Employment Impact (FTE’s or person years of employment)

3034 1038 670 2223 6965 FTE’s

(8428 jobs)

(Assumes 1.21 jobs per 1 FTE, as per previous DPTI analysis)

37

Figure 17: Typical greenfield development in Salisbury, one net dwelling (Source Urbis)

Table 8: Greenfield development calculations - Economic benefits per 1000 net dwellings

Initial First Round Industrial Support

Consumption Induced

Total

GSP or Value Added Impact ($ m)

117 41 28 96 $ 282 m

Housing Income Impact ($ m)

71 26 18 48 $ 163 m

Employment Impact (FTE’s or person years of employment)

1302 445 287 953 2992 FTE’s

(3616 jobs)

(Assume 1.21 jobs per 1 FTE, as per previous DPTI analysis)

38

Infill Economic Impact per 1000 Dwellings (Middle Scenario – See Below)

The analysis indicates that the additional construction expenditure to create 1000 net infill housing will generate around 3030 FTEs of employment directly in building, plus 1040 in trades plus other suppliers. The total impact on employment including induced or broader flow-on effects of 2900 is 6970 FTEs (8430 jobs).

An additional expenditure of $560 million to create 1000 ‘net’ infill housing will generate around $270 million directly in building activity, plus $95 million of activity in trades plus other suppliers. The total impact on employment including induced or broader flow-on effects of $290 million is $660 million

Greenfield Economic Impact per 1000 Dwellings

Thus, the analysis indicates that the additional construction expenditure to create 1000 net greenfield houses will generate around 1,300 FTEs of employment directly in building, plus 450 in trades plus other suppliers. The total impact on employment including induced or broader flow-on effects of 1240 is 3,000 FTEs (3620 jobs).

An additional expenditure of $243 million to create 1000 greenfield houses will generate around $120 million directly in building activity, plus $40 million of activity in trades plus other suppliers. The total impact on employment including induced or broader flow-on effects of $120 million is $280 million.

Table 9: Indicating all scenarios for infill development

39

By applying this approach (subject to more detailed modelling) it can be concluded where infill development could replace greenfield development (per 1000 dwellings) that:

Infill development would create 4810 more jobs than greenfield development

Infill development would contribute $375 m greater return to the state economy in labour and capital.

Infill development would contribute $200 m greater increase in gross wages and incomes paid to building sector employees

The development industry (Urban Development Institute of Australia, 2013) has stated a number of issues and barriers to infill development in Adelaide.

The main constraint to infill and redevelopment continues to be conservative planning rules. This is resulting in developer’s currently experiencing difficulty in delivering market-acceptable product (location, design and price) with higher intensity sites and sites with multi-dwellings in infill areas. The high cost to bring developable land and housing product to the market needs to be overcome. The uncertainty in the planning approval processes and the provision of core infrastructure is also a significant concern to the UDIA.

Nevertheless, the infill sector contributes the greatest share of turnover, remains a significant employer and economic generator despite profit margins being lower than other types of development (i.e. apartments and greenfield development, as per NHSC, 2010). The sector generally supports small to medium enterprises not necessarily represented by peak development bodies (see typical companies/builders in Appendix D: Typical Infill developers). This would suggest Government has the opportunity to better engage with SME building companies and to work with bodies such as the MBA, UDIA and HIA to improve construction costs. This would further support the current drive for infill housing in the middle ring.

40

Chapter 5. Metropolitan Capacity

While a considerable amount of effort had been applied during the 30 Year Plan process particularly in estimating broad acre capacity, modelling the demand and attributes of the yield/capacity of inner and middle ring areas appears to have been limited at that time. The basis of the 14,200 gross hectares identified for development outside of the Urban Growth Boundary included a number of assumptions that could now be re-examined given: a) the evidence presented in previous chapters relating to the costs and locational preferences of the housing market, b) changed drivers and market context since 2009. The 30 Year plan assumed:

A 50:50 ratio of demand for infill housing to fringe housing and a 70:30 ratio by decade three. Data recently received from DPTI suggests we are tracking closely to a 60:40 net dwelling ratio (approximately 10-15 years sooner than predicted). The 2010 HELSP report (Department of Planning and Local Government, 2010) revealed that gross dwelling stock gain ratio was 5000 infill to 2600 broad acre lots per annum.

A target of 258,000 dwellings across Greater Adelaide underpinned by a constant household size (number of people per house). Household occupancies have increased in almost all middle and inner ring LGA’s between census periods while they have been falling in many outer metro councils (see Appendix E: Household occupancy between census periods)

Relatively low dwelling densities (5 to 10 dwellings per hectare – gross density). More contemporary development has achieved higher densities (refer Mawson Lakes).

Regional land capacity based on only 70% of land being ready for development.

Relatively low population target for the City of Adelaide (16,300 by 2038) and lower than currently planned inner rim growth potential. This has been revised up to 55,000 dwellings (Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, 2012) (Capital City DPA and Inner Metro Rim Structure Plan).

Relatively high employment and economic growth rate driven in part by the mining boom and the Regional Migration scheme. Adelaide is no longer the largest recipient (in percentage terms of total immigrants) of work seeking immigrants. The regional migration scheme formula is now favouring cities such as Perth.

The redevelopment, apartment and infill industry has often sought high land value often located in the established leafy suburbs (inner north, eastern and southern locations or coastal areas). Along with the challenges of infrastructure augmentation is community reaction to the impact on the character of these areas. Historic conservation zones now protect important areas from development. Nevertheless, the redevelopment potential of moderately valued land is significant particularly in post war areas to the west and north east of the city. This is despite the relatively smaller profit margins that this development sector returns.

Re-thinking land consumption approaches

There were a number of fundamental ‘urban growth principles and assumptions’ that were applied in the ‘Growth Investigations Areas’ analysis that led to the final land requirement. These included a conservative gross density estimate of around 8-9 dwellings per hectare, a land supply buffer of around 25% of developable land relating to risks associated with the actions of land owners with holding land; the need for choice and competition in the market (which affects the staging of infrastructure, but is unclear why additional land is required.) etc. designating a large component of the development area for other land uses, open space, roads, constraints etc.

41

The final plan assumed a far higher 14,200 ha gross yield translating to a 10,650 ha ‘net’ yield and an effective residential area of between 6,400-7,400ha (depending on how this is calculated) after other land uses are accounted for. While this may be seen as a traditional and low risk approach of ensuring a 25-year land supply rate it does beg the question as to what could be done (policies) to reduce consumption; drive higher densities and reduce the final footprint and the impact of greenfield development on agricultural land (where this is applicable).

The assumptions broadly assumed 7300 dwellings per annum would be required in infill/greenfield locations and 1300 per annum in townships. A ‘sensitivity’ test has been undertaken to test the robustness of the parameters that have been applied, applying current growth rates.

Two alternative scenarios are presented below in Figure 18, to test these assumptions. They are based on current average growth rates (since about 2006, which are lower than the 30 Year Plan targets), higher ‘net’ yields and therefore effectively a higher overall gross yield (up to 15 dwellings per hectare is reasonable given that Mawson Lakes has achieved a higher yield on average). This would underpin the removal of some of the risks outlined above, and in the case of Scenario 1 an acceleration of the infill development rate. Both scenarios result in a lower land take/greenfield footprint requiring approximately 5000 hectares of broadacre/greenfield land until 2038. This yield crudely represents the area of land that has been rezoned since the 30 Year Plan as well as the land currently being planned for development (Playford Urban Growth Areas Structure Plan).

Figure 18: Demonstrating land requirement assumptions of the 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide

42

Scenario 1 results in 20,000 dwellings being re-directed from greenfield to infill development. This would not impact on township growth rates at 1300 dwellings per annum (as assumed within the 30 Year plan).

Scenario 2 assumes a higher dwelling density but lower ‘infill’ result given that the ratio stays constant.

Under the current growth rates the infill target outlined in the 30 Year Plan is still considered to be achievable. The following benefits would accrue to the community and government over 30 years under Scenario One where a higher infill rate and lower greenfield rate could be assumed (refer calculations in Appendix F –Present Value of benefits over 30 years):

Table 10: Benefits of re-directing 20,000 greenfields dwellings to infill dwellings

Assume 20,000 dwellings can be redirected from greenfield to Infill development11 over 30 years

Benefits Net Present Value, 4% discount rate

Property industry jobs 97,000 jobs NA

Return to state economy in labour and capital

$7.6 billion $4.5 billion

Increase in gross wages and incomes paid to building sector employees

$4.0 billion $2.4 billion

Infrastructure cost savings (public and private sector investment)12

$1.2 billion $730 million

Improving the Infill development uptake

The Capital City DPA (Adelaide City Council) and Inner Metro Growth Structure Plan (Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, 2012) have recently provided an accurate picture of the additional opportunity relating to infill. The ‘2004-2010 Residential demolition and re-subdivision report’ (Department of Planning Transport and Infrastructure, Adelaide Statistical Division, 2013) is a recent and important step in understanding the nature, scale and geographic distribution of residential demolitions and re-subdivisions in metropolitan Adelaide. The average net annual increase from demolition and re-subdivision activity over the study period was found to be 1,920 dwellings per annum (deemed ‘minor infill’). This represents around one-third of the total dwelling growth in metropolitan Adelaide. The analysis presented in Chapter 1 suggests that infill demand will continue to increase irrespective of the population rate.

The theoretical maximum development potential for minor infill within the metropolitan area is around 240,000 dwellings. While DPTI assumes only 40% of low capital value sites will be turned over during the next 30 years, this sector has the potential to grow in influence. InfraPlan believes that this number is conservative. Changes to legislation (renewal and inner rim strategies) and future policies that are not yet in place to further increase densities are possible over the next 20 years. One could reasonably assume an infill turnover rate at 50% of the total opportunity.

11

Apartments, re-subdivisions, minor infill, major infill etc., 12

Assuming median costs for infill versus greenfield development

43

Table 11: Infill capacity based on re-subdivisions and minor infill projects

CS/SV Ratio

Theoretical maximum development potential

Availability Assumption (current DPTI)

DPTI ‘Realistic Potential’

Suggested 50% Target through Policy changes

1-1.3 71,239 40% 28,495 35,619

1.3 - 2 114,794 30% 34,438 57,397

>2 56,291 30% 16,887 28,145

TOTAL 242,324 79,820 121,161

This assumes that the 80:20 ratio could be achieved sooner than 2038, which is not unsurmountable given we are already approaching a 60:40 ratio. The economic and social benefits demonstrated in this study are compelling. Future policies to strengthen this push could include:

Affordable housing that is accessible to employment opportunities and that can be pursued through co-location planning policy, location efficient mortgages etc.;

More assertive zoning policies that better relate land stocks to end user (as opposed to speculator) demand;

Regulations that allow denser development on amalgamated sites, (concessions);

Site consideration of the accessibility of the site;

Removal of inefficient constraints on development envelopes (especially dated car parking rates), and;

Use of innovative building techniques and construction systems and the adoption of infrastructure contribution formulae that reflect the true cost of providing services (road infrastructure and public transport).

Government could also revisit the 30 Year Plan assumptions to investigate whether the scale and rate of land consumption for greenfield development is appropriate. Rather than building these buffers into its risk profile, Government may want to consider a number of mitigating measures to ensure more reasonable land consumption rates and a higher target density (gross 10-15 dwellings/ha). Policies that could be considered include:

Incremental rezoning mechanisms that drive provisional rezoning for residential purposes, i.e. land lots to be completed within a certain specified period (sequencing to prevent land banking);

Legislative changes and a small area staging programme driving a contractual commitment between government and developers to reduce the land take for other land uses, other than preserving land for natural features;

In return the development industry may be given some concessions relating to open space requirements, stamp duty concessions etc.;

Higher density targets (say 10-15 gross dwellings/hectare) that are adhered to i.e. Mawson Lakes is a case in point, at 16-18 dwellings per hectare (gross) where densities over 100 dwellings per hectare are achieved in their centre, balanced with lower density housing products. The overall infrastructure charge may be lower given the efficiency in land consumption;

44

Structure Planning to be detailed enough to ensure that the residential land component is delivered as zoned as per the precinct planning process. This allows a more definitive land use formulae to ensure 40-50% of zoned land is delivered as residential, and;

Infrastructure sequencing tied to land staging.

Complimentary policy imperatives, like these, are often not considered together and cannot be unless land use planning and infrastructure is examined together as part of a coherent and consistent integrated transport and land use planning and legislative framework.

The potential for Outer metro councils to also deliver are greater share of infill development will be important in future years as capital to site values approach 1, as shown in Figure 19. Established areas like Playford, Port Adelaide/Enfield, Tea Tree Gully and Onkaparinga (outer metro councils) will have a role to play in population growth given their potential and the need to revitalise their centres. The City of Onkaparinga which has less land supply in future years but to compensate has the most significant infill potential in Metropolitan Adelaide (57,600 theoretical new dwelling yield).

Figure 19: Indicates the redevelopment potential showing that outer suburbs could play a larger role

The following table reflects an optimistic yet reasonable set of assumptions relating to infill and greenfield development and takes into account land already rezoned.

Table 12: Capacity based on current dwelling turnover

Capacity at 6,000 dw p.a.

(7,500 dwellings p.a. brackets)

No of dwellings Rate of demand per annum (average)

Development capacity

Fringe capacity (greenfield) based on currently rezoned broad acre land HELSP 2012

81,000

2300

(2,875)

35 years

(28 years)

Apartments / high density based on Inner Rim growth Strategy / City (major infill)

55,000 800

(1,000)

69 years

(55 years)

Redevelopment/

Re-subdivision (minor infill) based on 50% of total opportunities.

120,000 2600

(3,250)

46 years (92 years theoretical)

(37 years)

45

At the current rate of metropolitan growth of 15,000 persons per annum, if we apply the ‘net dwelling’ uptake rate during the most buoyant period in Adelaide’s growth (2005-2008) (Department of Planning and Local Government, 2010), can be maintained (approximately 6000 dwellings per annum), the following capacity horizon can be assumed for each development typology (30 year Plan assumptions in brackets, based on 7,000-7,500 dwellings per annum).

46

Chapter 6: Other benefits and impacts

Urban Densification

Urban density refers to the number of people within an urban area, while urban densification is the process of increasing densities (populations) within a given urban area. The public perception of density is often misunderstood for 20 storey high-rise buildings which invade people’s privacy and diminish an area’s character. Densification is simply an increase of people within an urban area which could occur through the subdivision of land, groups of townhouses and groups of units or higher-density than 4 storey buildings where applicable. The east-end of Adelaide is a successful precinct with a thriving main street achieved through an urban density of 6-8 stories.

Intensifying development and centralising populations within Adelaide is a key outcome in planning for the ‘greater good’ of the Adelaide public. Without a thriving city centre, Adelaide lacks the presence of an economic, cultural and transport crossroads, which can enhance the city’s sense of place, civic focus, character and unique identity (differentiation from other cities). Importantly, the ‘fine grain’ retail environments flourish in the presence of urban density, which in turn creates an increased demand for diversity to meet the needs of a variety of people. As Jane Jacobs (1969) once said, ‘the potential for variety in consumption is valuable to consumers…’ but we need the density to sustain these vibrant environments. Urban densification limits environmental degradation of previously undeveloped areas, supports social capital, mental and physical health, the feasibility of public infrastructure, renewal through development and the broader economic viability of the city.

Recent research found that Figure 20 below demonstrates that Adelaide has a very low density compared to other Australian cities.

Figure 20: Proportion of population in dwellings of three or more stories (Reserve Bank of Australia, 2011).

There is a clear relationship between this measure of housing density and distance from the CBD. Furthermore, while the fitted curves are somewhat dependent upon the precise form of the kernel estimation, it is clear that density close to the CBD was highest in Sydney and Melbourne, the two largest Australian cities, and lowest in Adelaide, the smallest of the five cities. It is also noteworthy that density falls off quite quickly: at 10 kilometres from the city, the proportion of the population living in apartments of three or more stories in four of the five cities was very small in 2006. Sydney was the exception, with the fitted line indicating that the typical Sydney suburb 10 kilometres from the CBD had around 20 per cent of the population in such apartments (Reserve Bank, 2011).

47

Figure 21: Only one third of Adelaide's density meets the 2000-3000 persons per square kilometre range.

Transport Options and Accessibility

New population densities will increase the demand on our existing public transport network which will in turn, mitigate the current loss we make on our transport system. Subsequently, the opportunity for infrastructure upgrades or an increase of services will become a viable option.

Increased population densities may also add good pressure on to Adelaide’s existing traffic congestion, forcing people to choose other transport options; such as cycling and walking. Priority bus lanes, surface-treated and designated cycling lanes and off-road paths, pedestrian crossing points and increased ease of access are all considerations for increasing densities in Adelaide. Most importantly, urban densification provides people with the affordability, greater equity and opportunity to choose public transport, walking and cycling over private motor vehicle use.

Density and Public Transport Cost Recovery Ratio

Most transportation systems are not self-supporting, so advertising revenue and government subsidies are usually required to cover costs. Another key benefit of urban density is the improvement in fare recovery ratio for public transport (the portion of the fare that is used to fund the ongoing cost of public transport. Adelaide only recovers 25% of its public transport running costs at the fare box and patronage growth on its rail system has been the lowest of all main land cities over the past decade. The State of Cities report (2011) found that the so-called fare recovery from public transport continues to decline, raising questions about the financial sustainability of proposed systems. In comparison to Adelaide cities in Europe with higher average densities tend to support successful tram systems leading to higher cost recovery ratios as demonstrated in Figure 22 on the next page.

The recent release of the ‘Integrated Transport and Land Use Plan’ for Adelaide highlights the need to address Adelaide’s public transport system with an emphasis on trams and light rail in the middle and inner suburbs of Adelaide. The analysis below suggests that the cost of not only implementing but running the tram/Light Rail system will heavily rely on Adelaide achieving a higher density in its middle and inner rim as demonstrated by a number of cities in Europe, Japan and the United States.

48

Figure 22: Successful tram cities and corresponding densities and public transport cost recovery ratios

Main Streets

Main streets such as the Parade, Unley, King William and Prospect Roads all play a vital role in connecting neighbourhoods to precincts, transit corridors (i.e. tram), facilities and open space (Figure 23 below). The design and diversity of main streets in Adelaide has the potential to renew underutilised urban centres.

Figure 23: Visualising the potential for rejuvenation of the Unley Road precinct.

(Source: Googlemaps2013, Unley Council Website - www.unley.sa.gov.au)

Agricultural Worth and Greenfield Conflict

It has been previously argued in planning strategies prior to the 30 Year Plan that if Adelaide’s urban footprint is guided outward to accommodate greenfield development, valuable agricultural land on the urban fringe will be increasingly consumed by the urban system. For the most part, this land lies at the interface between urban and rural areas, known as the peri-urban zone. Characteristics of this zone include a diverse and low density population; a heterogeneous mix of land uses (although primarily agricultural); varying morphological conditions; complex functional relations and an established social structure (community) (Thapa & Murayama, 2008).

49

Contemporary urban policies warranting substantial outward (greenfield) growth, such as those in the 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide (Department of Planning and Local Government, 2010), appear justified on the grounds of affordability. This seems to have been suffice in pushing development beyond the established urban growth boundary and in to the peri-urban zone. According to Neuppenau (2002), such a rapid response is often driven by short-lived economic growth and wealth, while paradoxically; peripheral agriculture presents a more constructive, socially and environmentally sustainable long-term solution to population management.

Within a local context, Adelaide’s fresh market culture and culinary reputation (Adelaide City Council, 2013) facilitate a strong demand for local produce, and as suggested by Borne et al. (2003) greater benefit would be reaped from the preserving fringe areas. There is also an increasing need to protect regional resources for tourism purposes and open space capital.

Adelaide’s Peri-Urban Primary Production

Analysis conducted by Houston (2005) suggested that the combined peri-urban regions of Australia’s five largest cities produced approximately 25% of the nation’s total gross agricultural production value. At a comparative State level, Adelaide’s peri-urban zone produced 25.81% of South Australia’s total agricultural production value, the highest across all examined States. This was achieved on just 2.13% of the State’s total land area; the second smallest of the study (see Figure 24). This highlights the unique combination of favourable natural resource conditions, multiple water supply options, major private and public investment in infrastructure, and access to a large labour supply found within Adelaide’s peri-urban region. This combination of factors, which is not replicated elsewhere in the State and possibly the country, is all the more significant because of its proximity to local markets, internationally renowned culinary destinations (i.e. Barossa Valley), major interstate freight routes and distribution facilities. Table 13 (next page) presents the findings of the Houston’s study in detail, highlighting South Australia’s performance.

Figure 24: Depiction of Adelaide's peri-urban region as identified by McKenzie (1996) (Source Infraplan, 2013)

50

Table 13: Average area and value of agricultural production in peri-urban regions, Australia (excluding Tasmania, Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory) (Houston, 2005)

SCENARIO: A. Peri-metropolitan

agriculture #1

B. Peri-metropolitan agriculture #2

C. Total agriculture in peri-

urban regions

Area (ha) Value ($,000) Area (ha) Value ($,000) Area (ha) Value ($,000)

NSW 60,293,384 6,040,741

60,293,384 6,040,741

60,293,384 6,040,741

Peri-Urban 89,472 426,426

90,537 448,625

2,932,413 1,351,697

% of total 0.15 7.07 0.15 7.44 4.86 22.40

QLD 150,592,494 5,144,540

150,592,494 5,144,540

150,592,494 5,144,540

Peri-Urban 970,377 664,398

975,393 718,962

2,760,785 1,235,243

% of total 0.64 12.91 0.65 13.97 1.71 22.10

SA 56,640,670 2,317,913 56,640,670 2,317,913 56,640,670 2,317,913

Peri-Urban 1,199,104 571,791 1,204,502 598,586 1,204,502 598,586

% of total 2.12 24.69 2.13 25.81 2.13 25.81

VIC 12,669,270 5,297,131

12,669,270 5,297,131

12,669,270 5,297,131

Peri-Urban 735,050 819,817

743,184 855,047

2,005,878 1,464,887

% of total 5.56 15.34 5.63 16.01 13.34 25.50

WA 112,995,537 3,453,006

112,995,537 3,453,006

112,995,537 3,453,006

Peri-Urban 1,263,706 459,320

1,266,554 493,347

2,703,068 860,996

% of total 1.05 12.91 1.06 13.90 2.20 23.58

TOTAL 393,191,355 22,253,331

393,191,355 22,253,331

393,191,355 22,253,331

Peri-Urban 4,257,710 2,941,752

4,280,169 3,114,566

11,606,646 5,511,408

% of total 1.08 13.22 1.09 14.00 2.95 24.77

Notes: Scenario A: Calculated in the basis of all exurban LGA’s/SLA’s identified by McKenzie 1996.

Scenario B: Calculated on the basis of the Metropolitan Statistical Division total, plus any exurban LGA’s/SLA’s identified by McKenzie (1996) outside the MSD.

Scenario C: Calculated on the basis of Scenario B plus all non-metropolitan SLA’s identified in Houston (2005).

With this in mind, the South Australian Government’s department of Primary Industry and Regions SA (PIRSA, 2013) document the strength of the agri-business industry in South Australia by concluding that for the 2011-12 year, a number of values reached record levels and have been detailed below:

Gross Food Revenue increased by $442 million (m) (3%) to $14.3 billion (b);

Finished Food values have grown by around $200m (4%) to $4.9b;

Total Overseas Exports exceeded previous record levels in 2010-11 by $207 million (6%) to $3.7b;

SA Food Retail and Food Service sales grew by over $300m (4%) to $8.7b; and;

SA agri-business employment reached record levels of 150,300 jobs.

Relating this strength to Adelaide’s peri-urban zone, McKenzie (1996) in her study entitled ‘Beyond the Suburbs’ defined a specific peri-urban boundary for the city, from which Houston calculated his findings. Correlating the latest PIRSA scorecard summaries (2005-06) for these regions (exact boundaries do not align), it can be suggested that Adelaide’s peri-urban region generated Gross Food Revenue (incl. wine) of $2.9b, 29% of the South Australian total of $10.1b for the same period (PIRSA, 2013).

51

As an example, PIRSA identifies the Northern Adelaide Region as one of the State’s major horticultural production areas. The district produces a range of mainly vegetable crops in greenhouse, hydroponic and field production systems. According to PIRSA (2013), benefits to the South Australian economy in 2004-05 from this region included:

$97m gross farm value of production (2.3% of SA total), including $76m of horticultural production (16% of SA total);

$498m of agri-food processing value (9% of SA total) and;

$474m (41%) of interstate export income from food production and processing, including $220m (43%) of interstate export income from horticulture.

Measured on the basis of dollars per hectare, the region ranks amongst South Australia’s leading primary production districts13, which further reiterates the value of the unique combination of favourable conditions. It is because of these conditions the region comprises the largest concentration of greenhouse structures in Australia (more than 700 hectares concentrated mainly around the township of Virginia) and following recent investment in water treatment works and the WRSV pipeline, it is one of the leading sites of recycled water use. Within South Australia, it is also a major focus for horticultural food processing and distribution industries, with several major investments in state-of-the-art processing/packing facilities during the past few years. The total value of this dedicated infrastructure is estimated to be in excess of $300m.14

Given these very significant economic dimensions, government must take caution to avoid de-stabilising Adelaide’s peri-urban regions when considering major development proposals in the vicinity. The loss of productive land is presented in Table 14 below and is highly dependent on the intensification of that land, notwithstanding that one cannot predict its latent value (unforeseen future markets and demand).

Table 14: Loss of productive land (assuming 20 dwellings per hectare, 50 hectares per 1000 dwellings).

Previous broad acre use

Area Lost

Production $/ha

Lost Production per Annum

Capital Costs

One-off Loss

$ Capital Lost Total

Greenhouse 50 $200,000 $ 10,000,000 $500,000 $25,000,000

Broadacre Veg 50 $ 12,000 $ 600,000 $ 15,000 $ 750,000

Broadacre Flowers 50 $ 10,000 $ 500,000 $ 15,000 $ 750,000

Rose/Nursery 50 $100,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 20,000 $ 1,000,000

Bunchline veg 50 $100,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 15,000 $ 750,000

Vines 50 $ 15,500 $ 775,000 $ 40,000 $ 2,000,000

Almonds 50 $ 17,500 $ 875,000 $ 40,000 $ 2,000,000

Olives 50 $ 7,000 $ 350,000 $ 25,000 $ 1,250,000

Other Horticulture 50 $ 10,000 $ 500,000 $ 15,000 $ 750,000

Irrigated Pasture 50 $ 3,000 $ 150,000 $ 10,000 $ 500,000

Cereals 50 $ 900 $ 45,000

$ -

Average

$ 2,163,182

$ 3,159,091

Source: PIRSA, 2007. For average for a number of crop types, escalated applying ABS CPI index for Adelaide between 2008 and 2012 (difference of 14.2%). For 2625 dwellings per annum as per note 6 over 20 years this equates to $114.6m (undiscounted) plus cost of one off capital loss (buildings and land), amortised over 20 years.

13 This calculation is based on ABS Agricultural Census data for South Australian local government areas with more than 5000 hectares of

agricultural establishments during 2001. On this basis, the City of Playford, which comprises the bulk of the Virginia horticulture district, is

ranked second ($6447/ha) behind DC Berri-Barmera ($7966/ha). A calculation that includes those parts of the district outside of Playford (ie.

sections of Mallala, Salisbury and Gawler LGAs) would probably increase this ranking.

14 This comprises approximately $60m of greenhouse structures and associated plant, $90m of recycled water distribution pipeline (WRSV)

and on-farm irrigation systems, and $150m of processing and packing operations.

52

Environmental Benefits of Peri-Urban Agriculture

Environmental considerations are fundamental to ongoing and sustainable urban development (Dempsey, Bramley, Power, & Brown, 2011). The peri-urban zone provides a defining buffer zone and assists in distinguishing the urban from the rural. Generally encapsulated within the sphere of urban interest, it is perhaps this notion that facilitates gradual permeation of the built form (Thapa & Murayama, 2008). Increased importance on the environmental value of peri-urban areas must be demonstrated through contemporary urban planning policy to ensure appropriate future management.

Emerging from a localised food production industry is a reduction in Adelaide’s carbon footprint through a reduction in food miles. Simplistically, food miles refer to the distance travelled between points of production and consumption (Waye, 2008). Behind the term is the assumption that proximity of production to market is a positive step toward carbon reduction. According to Waye (2008, p. 281), there is a considerable amount of literature arguing that the ‘environmental impact of transportation within global food chains is substantial.’15 From a U.S. study undertaken by Weber and Matthews (2008, p. 3512) it was concluded that the production and distribution of food is ‘a major source of GHG [greenhouse gases] and other environmental emissions’. Results of their analysis show that for an average household, ‘buying local’ could achieve a reduction of up to 4-5% in harmful emissions due to large generators being synonymous with the distribution process. When compared to the environmental implications of greenfield development, the benefits of restricting sprawl through increasing infill development is substantial.

Cumulative Self-Containment of Peri-Urban Regions

In addition to agricultural worth, McKenzie (1996) also produced supporting evidence of significant self-containment of the labour force within peri-urban regions, i.e.: a considerable amount of exurban residents have exurban jobs and do not commute long-distances to the CBD. This may be attributed to a number of factors, including: advances in communication technologies, attractiveness of peri-urban areas to the self-employed, and the continuing outward relocation of business and industry from the inner city to the outer suburban and exurban areas (Bell & Maher, 1995); (Fisher, 2003); (Houston, 2005); (McKenzie, 1996).

Furthermore, there is a well-established and growing body of evidence that the competitiveness of industries within a particular region is based on the advantages that pertain to that location; known as the advantages of proximity (Torre, 2008). These advantages are not simply the natural endowments, such as the soil, water and climate that originally attracted agricultural endeavours to Adelaide’s peri-urban zone; they are a product of the cumulative effects of that attraction. In other words, the presence of horticulture, along with related activities and infrastructure, creates strategic opportunities for other horticultural businesses and support industries, which in turn make these regions even more attractive and increasingly self-contained.

15

For example (Sourced from Waye 2008): Hugh Raven and Tim Lang with Caroline Dumonteil, Off Our Trolleys? Food Retailing and the

Hypermarket Economy (1995); Susan Subak, ‘Global Environmental Costs of Beef Production’ (1999) 30 Ecological Economics 79; Rich Pirog et

al, Food, Fuel and Freeways (2001); Tara Garnett, Wise Moves: Exploring the Relationship between Food, Transport and CO2 (Transport 2000

Trust Report, London, UK, 2000); Phillip A Stephens, Jules N Pretty and William J Sutherland, ‘Agriculture, Transport Policy and Landscape

Heterogeneity’ (2003) 18 TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 555; Sarah J Cowell and Stuart Parkinson, ‘Localisation of UK Food Production: An

Analysis Using Land Area and Energy as Indicators’ (2003) 94 Agrculture, Ecosystems and Environment 221.

53

Urban Renewal

Urban renewal is a term that may often be associated with ‘revitalisation’ or ‘regeneration’ in planning for urban areas, as they all aim to positively improve the current state of existing urban areas. In particular, urban renewal can be defined as:

‘the regrowth of economic activity where it has been lost; the restoration of social function where there has been dysfunction, or social inclusion where there has been exclusion; and the restoration of environmental quality or ecological balance where it has been lost.’ (Couch, C. Fraser, C. and Percy, S., 2003).

Rather than planning the development and urbanisation of new urban areas, urban renewal is involved with the management, planning and revitalisation of existing urban areas. In this time of evaluating our existing policy and growth areas, traditional approaches of mainstream urban planning are inadequate for the task of managing the renewal and growth of our cities. Urban renewal strategies require the capacity to meet our social, political, economic and environmental goals (Couch, C. Fraser, C. and Percy, S., 2003). Renewal should not only focus on profiting from the re-development of existing areas but consider the social, economic and environmental diversity of existing communities (Colantonio, A. Dixon, T., 2010).

Green Open Spaces and the Environment

Preserving Adelaide’s green spaces provides an ecological backbone for urban areas, facilitating improved physical and mental health, social capital and providing a communal community backyard. Listed as one of only 15 national biodiversity hotspots by the Federal Department of the Environment (2013), the Adelaide surrounds, including the Mount Lofty Ranges are vulnerable to the impacts of greenfield developments.

Similarly, conservation of the Adelaide CBD Parklands is vital in sustaining future densities and promoting tourism, festivals and events. Colonel Light originally chose the site for our city based on its relationship to the Adelaide Hills which promised good rainfall and conditions for agricultural land (McDougall, 2006). Adelaide was designed as a ‘garden city’ with the foresight that Adelaide would grow in density and thus require volumes of open space to facilitate its residents aesthetically and physically. The preservation and inclusion of the environment in planning Adelaide’s future density is crucial to ensure its success.

Walkability and Connectivity

Providing streets for people16 is essential in establishing denser urban areas (see Figure 25). If the urban footprint is to be contained by increasing density, any loss in private backyard space and gardens should be compensated. The streets can become the ‘backyard’ where spaces to rest, exercise and socialise become essential in sustaining the denser and more vibrant urban environments that Adelaide could achieve (Adelaide City Council, 2013).

The walkability of an area is also determined by sense of safety, accessibility, connectivity and available crossing points. As much as it is about the public realm, walkability is about location within proximity to goods and services. Urban densification will encourage and sustain the presence of small shopping precincts offering a specific set of trades and goods (i.e. the Elizabeth Street Café Precinct, Croydon) and encourage participation in active transport modes, such as walking and cycling.

16

Refer ‘Streets for People Compendium’ (2012) Heart Foundation (SA) and Government of South Australia.

54

Figure 25: Pedestrians and cyclists can be highest priority in some streets.

(Source: Infraplan 2013).

Health and Wellbeing

Urban densification can support improved health conditions within an urban area through reducing motor vehicle usage and encouraging mixed-modal trips which integrate exercise. Reducing the need for car ownership, through a frequent and reliable transport network can dramatically reduce the amount of emissions Adelaide produces each year through motor vehicle use. Motor vehicle use is essential in maintaining greenfield estates, reducing the level of activity we are likely to engage in on a regular basis. With obesity and mental health forming two of the leading health issues in Australia, urban renewal and densification can facilitate increased social interaction and walking or cycling trips, thus reducing the prevalence of these health risks.

A case study from New Zealand, showed that an estimated NZ$1,529,000 would be saved in medical costs per year through a reduction in mortality rates if walking and cycling provisions were added across the Auckland Harbour Bridge, which currently has none (Federal Department of Infrastructure and Transport, 2013, p. 311).

The Heart Foundation’s 2012 report on increasing density in Australia states that there are a range of health benefits that can be gained from density through good building design, quality neighbourhood infrastructure and diverse socioeconomic and cultural populations (Corti-Gile, B et al, 2012) (see Figure 25).

Figure 26: Hierarchy of factors required to meet the needs of residents living in higher density neighbourhoods.

(Source: Heart Foundation 2012).

55

Bibliography

.idblog. (2013, September 26). Demographic Resources, Population Trends ,Insights and Anecdotes from Australasia's most trusted spatial analysts. Retrieved from Adelaide's Population 2011 growth and changes since 2006: http://blog.id.com.au/2012/australian-population/adelaides-population-2011-growth-and-change-since-2006/

AbleyTransportation. (2013). Vampire. Retrieved September 2013, from Vampire: http://www.vampire.org.nz/vampire

ABS. (2006/7). Input - Output Tables. Retrieved September 2013 2013, from Australian Bureau of Statistics: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS

ABS. (2009/10). Household Expenditure Survey, SA. Australian Bureau of Statistics.

ABS. (2011). Census of Populaton and Housing. Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Adelaide City Council. (2013). Splash Adelaide. Retrieved September 25, 2013, from Splash Adelaide: www.splashadelaide.com.au

Bell, M., & Maher, C. (1995). Internal Migration in Australia 1986-1991: the Labour Force. Canberra: Bureau of Immigration, Multicultural and Population Research, Australian Government Public Service.

Borne, F., Satornkich, J., & Anwar, S. (2003). Plant modeling for landscape changes visualization: application to a peri-urban agricultural area. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Plant Growth Modeling, Simulation, Visualization and their Applications. Beijing, China: PMA03.

Center for Neighborhood Technology. (Current). H + T Affordability Index. Retrieved from http://htaindex.cnt.org

Colantonio, A. Dixon, T. (2010). Best Practice from European cities. Urban Regeneration and Social Sustainability.

Connor Holmes. (June, 2009). Growth Investigation Areas Poject - Urban Growth Expansion of Greater Adelaide.

CoreLogic. (2013). RP Data. Retrieved September 2013, from RP Data: http://www.rpdata.com

Corti-Gile, B et al. (2012). Increasing Density in Australia: maximising health benefits and minimising harm. Australia: The SA Heart Foundation.

Couch, C. Fraser, C. and Percy, S. (2003). Real Estate Issues: Urban Regeneration in Europe. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science.

Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S., & Brown, C. (2011). The social dimension of sustainable development: Defining urban social sustainability. Sustainable Development, 289-300.

Department of Planning and Local Government. (2010). Housing and Employment Land Supply Program Report 2010, Greater Adelaide.

Department of Planning and Local Government. (2010). The 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide, A volume of the South Australian Planning Strategy. Adealaide.

Department of Planning Transport and Infrastructure. (June 2012). Residential land development activity report.

Department of Planning Transport and Infrastructure, Adelaide Statistical Division. (2013). 2004 - 2010 Residential demolition and resubdivision report.

Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure. (2012). Inner Metro Rim Structure Plan. Adelaide.

56

Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure. (May, 2013). Playford Growth Area Structure Plan.

Department of the Environment. (2013). Australian Government. Retrieved September 25, 2013, from Department of the Environment: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/hotspots/national-hotspots.html#hotspot7

Federal Department of Infrastructure and Transport. (2013). State of Australian Cities 2013 Report. Canberra: Australian Government.

Fisher, T. (2003). Differentiation of Growth Processes in the Peri-urban Region: An Australian Case Study. Urban Studies, 551-565.

Florida, Richard. (2002, September 26). The Rise of the Creative Class. Retrieved from The Creative Class: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0205.florida.html

Foundation, H. (2012). Increasing density in Australia. National Heart Foundation of Australian.

Gastil, J., & Xenos, M. (2010). Of attitudes and engagement: Clarifying the reciprocal relationship between civic attitudes and political participation. Journal of Communication, 318-343.

Haas. (2012, September 26). Sustainable Urbanism and Beyond: Rethinking Cities for the Future. Retrieved from Congress for New Urbanism: newurbanism.org

Houston, P. (2005). Re-valuing the Fringe: Some Findings on the Value of Agricultural Production in Australia's Peri-Urban Regions. Geographical Research, 209-223.

iMakeNews. (2012, September 26). Alliance for Regional Stewardship. Retrieved from iMakeNews: imakenews.com/ars/e_article0000.86749.cfm

J.R Kenworthy, P. N. (1992). The ecology of urban driving 1 - methodology. Transportation Research PartA: Policy and Practice, 263-272.

Jacobs, J. (1969). The Economy of Cities.

Keck, C. (2001). Looking Forward - Melbourne 2012, Strategic Property Consulting, Research Insight. Charter.

Kulish Mariano, R. A. (2011). Urban Structure and Housing Prices: Some Evidence from Australian Cities. Reserve Bank.

McDougall, V. (2006). The City of Adelaide a Thematic History. Retrieved from Adelaide City Council: http://www.adelaidecitycouncil.com/assets/acc/Council/docs/city_of_adelaide_thematic_history.pdf

McKenzie, F. (1996). Beyond the Suburbs: Population Change in the Major Exurban Regions of Australia. Canberra: Bureau of Immigration, Multicultural and Population Research, Australian Government Public Service.

National Housing Supply Council. (2010). 2nd State of Supply Report.

Neuppenau, E. (2002, March). Agro-Ecologically Oriented Land Use and the Creation of Viable Rural Urban Interfaces. Peri-urban Development in South East Asia, 2nd Newsletter.

NHS. (2012/13). Housing Supply and Affordability Issues. National Housing Supply Council.

Peter Calthorpe. (2011). Urbanism in the Age of Climate Change. Washington, DC: Island Press.

PIRSA. (2013). Primary Industry and Regions SA. Retrieved September 25, 2013, from SA Food Scorecard 2011-12 Report: www.pir.sa.gov.au

Productivity Commission. (2011). Performance Benchmarking of Australian Business Regulation: Planning, Zoning and Development Assessments.

57

Public Service Association. (August, 2009). Public Housing in South Australia and the Wider Impact of hte Australian Government's Stimulas Package.

RAA. (n.d.). RAA Motoring and Road Safety. Retrieved September 12, 2013, from RAA: http://www.raa.com.au/motoring-and-road-safety/car-advice/vehicle-running-costs

Rappaprt, J. (2008). Consumption amenities and city population density.

Road Transport Authority. (2011). RTA Economic Analysis Manual.

Roman Trubka, P. N. (2012). Accessing the Costs of Alternative Development Paths in Australian Cities. Fremantle: Curtain University Sustainability Policy Institute.

Salt, B. (2012). In brave new world, latte line cuts the ideological divide. The Australian.

SGS Economics and Planning Pty Ltd. (May, 2003). Costs of Urban Form Discussion Paper.

Shaw, R. (2002). The International Building Exhibition. European Planning Studies: A model for sustainable restructuring, 2.

Smith, M. (2006). Tourism, Culture and Regeneration.

Thapa, R. &. (2008). Land evaluation for peri-urban agriculture using analytical hierachical process and geographic information system techniques. A Case Study of Hanoi, Land Use Policy, 25, 225-239.

Thapa, R., & Murayama, Y. (2008). Land evaluation for peri-urban agriculture using analytical hierachical process and geographic information system techniques. A Case Study of Hanoi, Land Use Policy, 25, 225-239.

Torre, A. (2008). On the role played by temporary geographical proximity in knowledge transmission. Regional Studies, 869-889.

Urban Development Institute of Australia. (2013). The 2013 UDIA State of the Land Report, National Land Supply Study.

Urbis. (2013, June 17). Gen Y to fire up a market in flux. Courier Mail.

Urbis. (May 2011). National Dwelling Cost Study, Prepared for the National Housing Supply Council.

Waye, V. (2008). Carbon footprints, food miles and the Australian wine industry. Melbourne Journal of International Law, 271-301.

Weber, C., & Matthews, H. (2008). Food-miles and the relative climate impacts of food choices in the United States. Environmental Science & Technology, 3508-3513.

58

Image Resources

Total Infrastructure Costs

Description: Source:

South Eastern Freeway

Adelaidenow Article – “South Eastern Freeway Truck speed slashed from 100km/h to 60km/h” written by Adam Hegarty. March 2, 2011. Link: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/south-eastern-freeway-truck-speed-slashed-from-100kmh-to-60kmh/story-e6frea83-1226014758513

Seaford Heights

skyscrapercity.com – “Urban Sprawl: Your cities urban fringe” thread post by Jack Daniel. August 5, 2011. Link: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1420542&page=9

Sewerage Plant

Link: http://wikimapia.org/955753/Wastewater-treatment-plant-Dikanevskiy

Royal Adelaide Hospital

Morgan’s Cranes Website - ‘Projects in Adelaide’

Link: http://www.morganscranes.com.au/projects

59

Students in Classroom

Immanuel College – Learning Spaces

Link: http://www.immanuel.sa.edu.au/About-Us/Facilities/Learning-Spaces/

Southern Expressway Duplication

Adelaidenow Article – “Second Southern Expressway on Track for 2014” written by Adam Hegarty. Image: Artists Impression. March 27 2012.

Link: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/second-southern-expressway-on-track-for-2014/story-e6frea6u-1226311848931

South Road Overpass

flikr.com – Upload by Robert Sweeney, Feb 27 2010. Link:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/34215469@N03/4391728864/in/photolist-7G5KZb-7U7pvY-7U7pt7-7U4b9X-a8Zvma-eNbqwc-eSQWDu-aqcuHv-dmCYui-ae58qA-9Y44nr-dLUGRE-8f9aGw-8K1ARW-caR94N-7VXmGt-dsEYgg-dMynhi-8xDVMk

Britannia Roundabout

ABC Website – “Double Trouble or $3.2million congestion solution for Britannia roundabout?” written by Brett Williamson. June 5 2013. Image: SA Planning, Transport & Infrastructure. Link:

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2013/06/05/3774857.htm

60

Oaklands Station

flikr.com – Upload by Robert Sweeney. Oct 7 2011. Link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/httpwwwflickrcomtiger94/6221651146/

Services Extension - Piping

The Australian Pipeliner – “South Australia’s Pipeline Potential” by Mandy Wong. January 2010. Link:

http://pipeliner.com.au/news/south_australias_pipeline_potential/012081/

Industry Benefits per 1,000 Net Dwellings

Description: Source:

Construction Workers

The Australian – News Article “Retail Consumption takes off across the nation after two-year slump”. September 8

th, 2011.

Link: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/property/retail-construction-takes-off-across-the-nation-after-two-year-slump/story-fn9656lz-1226131688202

Trade Warehouse

Kodumaja – Production process at the factory

Link: http://www.kodumaja.ee/en/Construction-method-and-technology/Process-in-pictures/Production-process-at-the-factory-and-transport

61

Construction Worker

Blog post “Where is Adelaide’s scariest place?” by Dave Walsh. December 12, 2012. Link: http://www.weekendnotes.com/where-is-adelaides-scariest-place/

Timber Supply

SCA Timber – “SCA Timber Supply UK Products” December 4, 2013.

Link: http://www.sca.com/en/timber/Products/Products/

Total 20 year Cost per Household

Description: Source:

Metro Periphery Example

Outer Northern Suburbs Area Source: googlemaps.com (2013)

Middle Ring Example

Tranmere Area Subdivision Example Source: googlemaps.com (2013)

City Apartment Example

ARCHITECTUREAU- Featured in Architecture Australia Magazine: “Whitmore square affordable eco-housing by Troppo Architects” written by Rachel Hurst. August 24, 2011. Photography: Peter Bennetts

Link: http://architectureau.com/articles/whitmore-square-eco-house/

62

Appendices

63

Appendix A: Infrastructure costing assumptions

64

Table: Infrastructure Cost Summary for greenfield versus Infill areas

Infrastructure Costs Dwellings Notes Cost per lot

Playford, Region Adelaide

Greenfield

(Case Study)

Angle Vale $88,900 per lot

Playford North $72,00 per lot

Virginia $89,300 per lot

4400

5930

4200

Data has been provided by DPTI in confidence based on preliminary cost estimates to inform land owners. Final costs may vary

The data has been provided by DPTI based on Departmental costing

Rates have been applied to the Structure Plan to determine costs from first principles

Costs have been apportioned across 1-3 growth areas, or part of the region, or the whole Northern Region depending on the beneficiary of the social or physical infrastructure

$88,900

Median

Mount Barker

Greenfield

(Case Study)

Mount Barker $61,900 lot based on 10,000 dwellings

This includes the area identified in the 30 Year Plan.

10,000 Road infrastructure identified in the Heads of Agreement

between the State Government and the consortium of

developers - $164,000,000

Schools - $50,000,000+

Public transport - $50,000,000

Potable water - $75,000,000

Deep drainage sewer - $230,000,000

Health (including upgrades to Mount Barker Hospital) -

$50,000,000

$61,900

Councils across Australia

Infill locations

(Bench mark)

Moreland City, Victoria $17,900 per lot

Yarra City, Vic $8 400 per lot

Stonington, NSW $12 400 per lot

Adelaide, SA $5577 per lot (not cover all items)

NA Performance Benchmarking of Australian Business Regulation: Planning, Zoning and Development Assessments, Productivity Commission, 2011 Table 6.12 and other

Based on Charges at Local Government level and therefore could be an over or under estimate

$8,400-$17,900 per lot, 2011 (VIC and NSW)

$5,577 Adelaide, 2011, however this charge does not include a range of items

$8,600 - $18,300

Councils contribution -

Pittwater, NSW $62 000 per lot NA Productivity Commission, 2011 Table 6.12

Based on Charges at Local Government level and therefore could be

Council only contribution

65

NSW

Greenfield

(Bench mark)

Camden, NSW $59 000 per lot

Ku-ring-ai, NSW $54 000 per lot

Hawkesbury City $51 000 per lot

an over or under estimate. Given NSW is the state that tends to charge for the full range of infrastructure the top 5 locations have been included

$40-62,000 per lot, 2011

As high as $63,200 indexed to 2013

Sydney average

for Greenfield locations

(Benchmark)

Sydney had the highest residential infrastructure charges imposed on developers for greenfield developments, given it covers the broadest range of infrastructure items. The Sydney rate is considered a reasonably accurate approximation of the actual costs of providing this infrastructure on a per dwelling basis (based on its charging methodology).

NA Infrastructure charge per lot for Sydney houses

National Housing Infrastructure Costs Study, Nov 2006, PCA and URBIS

This increase is directly attributable to the State Government Special Infrastructure Levy (used to fund roads, schools, and emergency services) and Section 94 charges (used to fund community, recreation, transport and drainage facilities, tree planting and street scaping).

$68,233 per lot, 2006

$79,800

indexed to 2013

Sydney average

For Infill locations

(Bench mark)

Sydney had the highest residential infrastructure charges imposed on developers for Infill developments, given it covers the broadest range of infrastructure items. The Sydney rate is considered a reasonably accurate approximation of the actual costs of providing this infrastructure on a per dwelling basis (based on its charging methodology).

NA Productivity Commission, 2011 Table 6.12

Sydney has pursued a full cost recovery approach to infrastructure charges (applied to a wider range of infrastructure items including major roads, rail and social and recreational infrastructure) and this resulted in much higher charges ($15 000 per dwelling)

$15,300 per lot for NSW,

indexed to 2013

Australia wide assessment

Greenfield locations

(Bench mark)

PPI Scaled Value

PPI Scaled Value

38%

38%

City

Full Cost per Lot ($)

(2002)

Full Cost per Lot ($)

(2013)

Public Sector Cost per Lot

(2002)

Public Sector Cost per Lot

(2013) Public Sector Cost as Percentage of

Full Cost

Sydney

$ 81,352

$ 112,265.76

$ 42,507

$ 58,659.66 52.3%

NA SGS, 2003

Costs of Urban Form, Discussion Paper

Reference to National Housing Strategy, indexed to 2002 prices

Includes sewer, water, drainage, roads, power, telephone, site preparation, survey and design and community facilities such as sports and recreation facilities, police education, health, ambulance and fire stations.

$92,000 per lot

Indexed to 2013

(Australia)

66

Melbourne

$ 66,627

$ 91,945.26

$ 29,413

$ 40,589.94 44.1%

Brisbane

$ 61,458

$ 84,812.04

$ 24,687

$ 34,068.06 40.2%

Adelaide

$ 61,107

$ 84,327.66

$ 24,546

$ 33,873.48 40.2%

Perth $ 63,000

$ 86,940.00

$ 44,324

$ 61,167.12 70.4%

Average

$ 66,709

$ 92,058.14

$ 33,095

$ 45,671.65 49.6%

The data is unreliable given its original age (1991) Adelaide $84,300 per lot

Perth and other locations

Infill versus greenfield

(Bench mark)

Economic breakdown initial capital cost per 1000 dwellings (2007) Inner Outer

Roads $ 5,086,562

$ 30,378,881

Water and Sewerage $ 14,747,616

$ 22,377,459

Telecommunications $ 2,576,106

$ 3,711,851

Electricity $ 4,082,117

$ 9,696,505

Gas $ -

$ 3,690,843

Fire and Ambulance $ -

$ 302,509

Police $ -

$ 388,416

Municipal Services NA NA

Education $ 3,895,458

$ 33,147,274

Health $ 20,114,867

$ 32,347,327

Total

$ 50,500 per 1000

$ 136,000 per 1000

Per 1000 Parsons Brinkerhoff,

‘Assessing the Costs of Alternative Development Paths in Australian Cities’ – Commissioned by PB and undertaken by the Curtin University of technology.

Infrastructure costs of inner city and fringe developments; the main source of data was drawn from a paper prepared for the Western Australia Planning Commission in 2001. The report, titled

Future Perth, was compiled by Environmental Resource Management Pty Ltd (ERM) with the intent to identify the economic cost differences between developments in inner, middle and fringe areas. It reviewed the information produced by 22 studies across Australia, America, and Canada and sorted the cost findings into three different measures of urban form: inner, middle, and outer.

The Future Perth report drew on studies that ranged between the years of 1972 to 2000 but adjusted the reported costs to 1999 prices.

The data is unreliable given its original age

$50,500 Infill

$136,000 Greenfield

67

Appendix B: Housing cost assumptions

Middle Ring Infill House and Land Prices

All the values for the following tables were gathered from www.realestate.com as of 23/09/13. Houses were sorted by areas, number of bedrooms, and house and land package/apartments.

68

69

70

Inner Ring City Living Apartment Prices

71

2 Bedroom Apartment & House Prices

3 Bedroom House Prices

72

73

Appendix C: Transportation Cost assumptions

Car Ownership Percentage

RAA Car Costs

Data for the following table was retrieved from the RAA website on the 12/09/13 (http://ww.raa.com.au). RAA undergoes a yearly “Cost of Vehicle Ownership” survey to find the average cost that owners pay for their cars. The study covers vehicles which are mainly the best selling vehicles for each category, along with some chosen for special interest. All the costs of owning and operating a vehicle are including the financing costs of the whole price on the vehicle, depreciation, registration, licensing and insurance as well as ongoing costs such as fuel, tyres, servicing and

74

usual repairs. Fuel prices are an average of the last 12 months of prices around Adelaide. The data was all collected and compiled April through May of 2013.

Metro Ticket Costs

The data above was collected from the Adelaide Metro website on the 12/09/13 (http://www.adelaidemetro.com.au/Tickets/Fares). The peak time cost per trip of a single bus ride was then multiplied by 10 as it represents the amount of trips generally taken by a public transport user through out a standard week.

Household transportation costs

75

The above table indicates the total cost of a household for a consumer over both a single and 20 year period. These costs have sorted firstly into inner/Middle and Fringe regions and then again by their respecting LGA’s. Using data on transport (Percentage of Car Ownership by LGA) and assuming a house occupancy of 2, an assumption that generally both people within the inner ring would use public transport to get to work, middle ring occupants would use 1 car and 1 bus, and fringe occupants would use 2 car to get to work. This is reasonable given car ownership rates by LGA as per census data, 2011.

An assumption of 251 working days was applkied leading to a total of 502 trips per year for work purposes. Data for the median distance travelled to work was collected from Planning SA’s JTW maps 2001 (http://www.planning.sa.gov.au). The total trips taken per annum were then multiplied by the median distance travelled to work to achieve the total kilometres travel to work through a year.

Running cost per annum was calculated as follows:

[( ) ( )]

Personal travel time cost per annum was calculated as follows:

(

⁄ )

( ⁄ )

Vehicle running cost and travel time cost were then multiplied by 20, to give a cost over a 20 year period.

The respective annual and 20 year costs were added to together to give the total costs towards a household over both a single and 20 year period.

76

Appendix D: Typical Infill developers

77

Infill Developers

Name Address About

Property Prosperity

201 O'Connell Street, North Adelaide

We will guide you through the development process to help you achieve your subdivision goals.

With many years of experience in the building and development industry we know the ins and outs of Property Development in Adelaide.

Our Property Investment Analysis provides you with an individually tailored feasibility analysis of your development site to ensure that you get the maximum possible return in the shortest possible time.

http://www.propertyprosperity.com.au

Rossdale Homes

300 Glen Osmond Road Fullarton 5063 South Australia

Rossdale Homes is one of South Australia’s most respected builders, a proud family company that has been building award winning homes since 1980.

Rossdale refer to themselves as the “Specialists” in Knockdown and Rebuild and Sub-Division.

With 30 years of building experience, Rossdale are strong supporters of affordable, quality housing. To achieve this, they have listened carefully to customers, worked hard to meet the needs of their clients and developed a tradition of proudly exceptional service that is tailored to individual needs.

http://www.rossdalehomes.com.au

Eastern Building Group

142 Payneham Road

Stepney, SA 5069

Eastern Building Group have been in the building industry for a combined 25 years, and is now one of the the largest independently owned building enterprises in South Australia. Increasing densities in appropriate locations is about achieving more compact cities, and Eastern Building Group has worked with property developers on various projects and configurations, including detached, semi-detached and attached housing.

We pride ourselves on our capacity to advance projects by the care and skill we bring to adequately address the complexity of issues involved and to work collaboratively with appropriate government agencies and local councils

http://www.easternbuildgroup.com.au

Homestead Homes 928 North East Road Is the true potential of your block going to waste?

78

Modbury SA 5092 With land prices at an all time high and construction costs low, there has never been a better time to consider

developing your property.

Recent changes to planning regulations have allowed greater flexibility for home owners who wish to develop their property, thereby increasing its value.

The team at Homestead Homes can show you all the advantages, assisting you every step of the way from zoning and project feasibility, we can even take care of landscaping and interior decorating.

http://homesteadsa.com.au

World Concept Homes

Level 1 193-195 Port Road, Hindmarsh SA 5007

Have you have found a house on a large block that is a great investment opportunity? Develop your property to its full potential. At World Concept Homes we can guide you through the whole process, from designing a concept that maximises space right through to the land division, demolition of existing property and construction of your new dwellings. Property development isn't just for the experts ... let us take care of the hard work and guide you through the whole process! What do I need to do to get started?

http://worldconcept.com.au

Reflection Homes By Stellar

359 Regency Road Prospect South Australia 5082

Our Mission:

To provide investment opportunities, quality homes and a career path for young Australians by building and marketing superior residential properties for investors and home owners.

IS THIS YOU?

You are contemplating building an investment property.

You own a block of land that you are thinking of subdividing.

You can see other people creating wealth through property and would like to know how to go about it yourself.

If this sounds like you, we would love to meet and listen to your ideas and answer any questions you may have. We will discuss and work through how Reflection Homes can assist you in your new venture.

http://www.reflection-homes.com.au/

79

Hummingbird Homes

235 Unley Road, Malvern SA 5061

Hummingbird Homes is a boutique, high quality, delivery orientated building group predominantly focussed in the Eastern suburbs as well as coastal markets

Our core areas of expertise are design and construct individual homes as well as multi dwelling development based projects.

With an internal team of 8 people and a close knit trade / supplier / consulting team built up over the past 25 years by our personnel, we have the scale and expertise to deliver first class built form yet in a hands on and personalised environment.

http://www.hummingbirdhomes.com.au/

Metricon

N/A

With our emphasis on design, quality and a 25 Year Structural Guarantee, it’s no surprise that Metricon is the leader in the inner urban knockdown rebuild market. We even have a dedicated KDRB team with vast expertise and over 35 years of hands-on experience in knockdown rebuild developments.

http://www.metricon.com.au/south-australia/homes

Longridge Homes

158 Railway Terrace Mile End, SA 5031

We are a reputable builder with a truly innovative product range, which is complemented by high quality fit out and construction standards. The Longridge Homes goal has always been to provide the best quality, architect designed homes at prices that make them affordable to a wider spread of our community. We provide residential lifestyle choice for the design conscious who appreciate the critical interplay of design. style. function. space. light and lifestyle!

http://www.longridgehomes.com.au/index.php

Serenity Homes

6 The Parade Norwood SA 5067

Serenity Homes is a small team of passionate and committed professionals. We choose to build only a select number of homes a year, which allows us to have a "hands on" approach to the whole process. We get to know our clients, and our clients get to know us. We are flexible and innovative in our thinking. By carefully and individually managing your project we are able to offer a personalised and enjoyable building experience.

80

Our relationship with you is built on integrity, honesty and open dialogue. It is a true collaboration where we work alongside you to interpret your thoughts, your needs and your lifestyle. Most importantly... we listen. Serenity Homes is proud to be a recognised GreenSmart builder. We give careful consideration to sustainable building practices and design options which ultimately can offer you numerous benefits. We have been in operation for over eleven years and during this time, we have been recognised with numerous local and national awards - amongst them, we have won the prestigious HIA SA Professional Small Home Builder of the Year Award five times, and three major National building awards.

http://www.serenityhomes.com.au/

Genworth Group

L2 / 232 Melbourne Street, North Adelaide SA 5006

Drawing on time tested experience and outstanding skills gained designing and building some of Adelaide’s most prestigious homes and renovation projects, Genworth offers a unique statement in custom home design and construction.

For Chris Diamantis, founder of Genworth Homes, designing and building luxury homes is more than just a profession, it’s an obsession. Chris has been designing and building upscale prestige homes for more than 25 years.

Chris leads a team of design and construction professionals that collectively share his passion for architecture and quality construction. Every project is designed, developed and constructed by our dynamic team, affording a level of quality and attention to detail without compromise.

Genworth has become a name synonymous with the highest standards in the industry today. Our commitment is to deliver outstanding quality for the best possible price, ensuring absolute customer satisfaction.

http://www.genworthgroup.com.au/

Rivergum Homes

387-391 South Road Mile End South SA 5031

Designed with today’s lifestyle in mind, our stylish Rivergum Urban range offers quality, spacious homes that provide excellent value for money. We have plenty of designs to choose from and a variety of elevation styles, available to build off the plan or be customised to your specific needs.

We also specialise in a variety of construction methods and materials so your new home can be as unique as you. You’ll feel at home with Rivergum.

81

http://www.rivergumhomes.com.au/sa/

Scott Sailsbury Homes

1/134a The Parade, Norwood

When you choose your dream home you want everything to go just right.

You want your designer to understand you and your lifestyle. A builder who ensures everything goes to plan; that your dream is delivered.

Scott Salisbury Homes is SA's most awarded custom builder with a reputation built on a passion for delivering on promises.

We pride ourselves on outstanding customer service, unparalleled attention to detail, and the security of over 20 years of helping South Australian's live their dream.

http://www.scottsalisburyhomes.com.au/

Mirage Homes

P.O. Box 690, Oaklands Park, SA, 5046

Mirage Homes delivers outstanding quality new homes and developments across Adelaide.

We pride ourselves on one-on-one customer service, and have a keen eye for detail. Don't just take it from us, read what others have to say on our testimonials.

Founded in 2001 by carpenter Michael Villis, Mirage Homes' success has been achieved through word of mouth. Our process guides you from initial consultation through to design, and the completed construction. During this whole process you'll deal solely with Michael Villis. Unlike large builders, you can query Michael at any time during the process and be attended to immediately. There are limited number of available projects during the year to ensure first-class service and complete customer satisfaction.

http://www.mirage-homes.com.au/

Perspective Designers & Developers

N/A

Perspective Designers + Developers Pty Ltd represent excellence and true quality within the building industry. Based on over 15 years experience we continue to earn our reputation for perfection in architectural design, building and construction. As a member of the Master Builders Association Perspective designers + developers take pride in demonstrating superiority in workmanship and construction of all our projects.

We specialise in all areas of property development, ranging from; new homes, all types of extensions, additions and/or renovations to existing homes, townhouses, multi-unit property development & commercial fit outs. We pride ourselves on delivering professional and ethical service alongside high quality workmanship with attention to detail at an affordable price to suit every budget.

82

We want you to enjoy your building experience and we will be with you to guide and assist you in each step of the way from the beginning to the end. Our aim is to exceed your expectations from concept to completion of your project to ensure you are completely satisfied with the finished project. Perspective designers + developers have an excellent team of licensed tradesmen who are committed to “putting your building dreams into perspective.”

http://www.perspectivedesign.com.au/index.html

Australian Classic Homes

252 Magill Road, Beulah Park, SA, 5067

Australian Classic Homes started as Tudor Homes back in 1985 and were one of the first builders to provide authentic reproduction Tudor Design Homes. These became very popular and led to further reproduction styles that include English Manor style homes and Australian Federation and Colonial style hence the name change to Australian Classic Homes in 1991.

Our philosophy is simple that we want to create a home that will stand the test of time within your budget, be built on time to the highest standard and are committed to our clients even after handover. We understand building sometimes can be difficult and confusing and mistakes are made, we believe if it is wrong then fix it!

The company Directors have over 25 years experience and continue to have an integral “hands on role” in every project, we understand people have different ideas and requirements, we are committed to creating the best solution for you with the highest quality of finishes within your budget and complete your project on time.

Renovations and Additions are an integral part of our business. We provide the same level of service and advise specialising in complete makeovers or additions that compliment your existing home.

As a true Custom Home Builder every project we undertake is treated in the same manner we will “Listen” to your ideas, “Advise” and “Create” a home that is uniquely yours.

http://austclassichomes.rtrk.com.au

Regent Homes

274 Anzac Highway Plympton South Australia 5038

Regent Homes is a family owned company incorporated in 1991. With over 60 combined years of building experience our Directors Mike Sugars and David Lawrence have the experience and expertise to help our clients throughout the building process.

Since then building over 900 homes considerable expertise has been gained so whether it’s a new home, medium density development, split level or two storey, Regent Homes has the experience to deliver professional service, highest quality workmanship, and value for money whilst ensuring you and your new home receives the individual attention that only a custom home builder can deliver.

83

We specialize in building Custom Homes, whether it be 'your plan or Ours' and have now launched a range of Standard designs most of which are easily modified to suit your personal requirements, block size or shape. We also now have a Home Improvements team who can handle any large Addition or Renovation you may have.

Our supervisors check off every stage of work as we pride ourselves in the quality of our process, the finished product and strong client / builder relationship. The high standards that our customers have come to expect are achieved by employing skilled trades and professionals under our control.

Our company includes qualified, experienced people covering the whole spectrum in home building, including design, documentation, engineering, estimating and project management.

http://www.regenthomes.com.au/

New Creation Homes

309 North East Road Hampstead Gardens, SA, 508

Clients are realising the financial benefit, while reducing the high maintenance of larger blocks by sub-dividing and building two or more homes. Choosing to live in one and sell the other for profit. New Creation Group can manage your development or subdivision from concept and design through to construction, landscaping/retaining and handover.

NCG are not a mass producing home builder rather a company that can spend the time and communicate with you to make the experience of building a new home as enjoyable as it can be. We use high quality trades people and materials to finish your home to a standard and timeframe that you will be happy with and your family and friends will envy.

New Creation Group provides a full building service for additions, renovations, alterations & modifications. We can design your new addition to meet your needs of a growing family or a new purchase.

http://newcreationgroup.com.au/

Lucy Homes & Commercial

23 Shelter Row Craigburn Farm

At Lucy Homes we recognise that the key to our success is your happiness. Our aim is to exceed your expectations from concept to completion of your project. We offer 25 years experience in the building industry and a commitment to helping turn your dreams into reality.

84

SA 5051 Lucy Homes offer the following services:

Conceptual design

Full Architectural drawing and documentation

New home construction

Alterations and Additions

Town house and unit developments

Commercial and Industrial projects The team at Lucy Homes are experienced professionals with expertise in building standards, structural design, one-off architectural design and even share this through various lecturing commitments.

http://www.lucyhomes.com.au

WW Langer Construcstions

N/A

Our firm was established in 1981 initially as a carpentry business but in 1987 we expanded our scope of works to include small building works such as additions and renovations. Now over 25 years later our business undertakes all types of construction projects including new homes, large and small additions, renovations, general repairs and commercial alterations and fit outs. We use only qualified and proven tradesmen, some of which we have been using since we started in 1987. This ensures we know their workmanship and they understand our standards and expectations, thus allowing us to deliver high quality work to our clients.

http://www.langerconstructions.com.au/

Tweedie Constructions

N/A

Tweedie Constructions have been building homes of the highest quality in Adelaide for over 20 years. We are committed to building superior homes, individually designed to your exact and unique specifications. Tweedie Constructions understand the importance of working closely with you to ensure that your individuality and personality is reflected in your home. We offer personalised service during the design phase to achieve these goals. We will work with you from concept design to project completion to achieve your dream home. Whether it’s creating your new dream home or extending or transforming your current family home, we pride ourselves on excellence.

http://tweedieconstructions.com.au/

85

Betta Builders

N/A

Our works include:

Residential

New Builds

Single or Two Story

Solid Brick or Brick Veneer

From Character Homes to Modern

Extensions

Family Rooms

En-Suites

Walk in Robes

Rumpus Rooms

Home Office

Renovations

Kitchens

Bathrooms

Floor Plan Re-Modelling

Restoration Work Including Heritage Listed

http://www.bettabuilders.com.au

Buildscope Developments

35B Osmond Tce, Norwood SA 5067

Products & Services Service- construction, additions, extensions, renovations, new homes, developments, bathrooms, kitchens, project management, design service Trade- Building contractors Type- Residential / Commercial Style- Custom / architecturally/contemporary/ period Speciality- Custom built additions & renovations specialising in the Eastern suburbs Ownership- Family owned & operated Payment. Staff 1-10

http://www.yellowpages.com.au/sa/norwood/buildscope-developments-pty-ltd-12435346-listing.html

Planbuild Homes

223 Hutt Street Adelaide 5000 South Australia

Planbuild is an interdisciplinary consultancy based on over 40 years experience and professional qualifications as chartered planners and architects, qualified urban designers and building inspectors and Class 1 unrestricted licensed builders.

The firm has close associations with a wide range of consultancies and is in a position when required to assemble and efficiently manage an interdisciplinary group of professionals for completion of specific projects.

86

Following graduation, Peter Hignett, the principal of Planbuild, undertook postgraduate study and worked overseas as an architect and planner in Toronto, New York, and London. On returning to Adelaide he entered private practice in 1970. Consulting practice for over 40 years has provided the company with experience in most areas of planning, urban design and architecture, including commissions for private clients, Commonwealth, State, and Local Government.

Our property experience includes all housing, units, heritage assessment, restoration and alteration, commercial, retail, health, aged care, hospitality, education, institutional and investment building.

Adelaide Building Brokers is a division of Planbuild directed specifically towards providing building design, obtaining approvals and construction to a budget for all building design types including alterations, extensions, repairs and fit-out.

http://www.planbuildadelaide.com.au

Format Homes

252 Grange Road,

Flinders Park, S.A. 5025

At Format Homes, we have a philosophy of building quality homes at a value price. Quality control starts with the designing phase and follows right through the building process until final handover.

We pride ourselves not only on being able to design a home to suit a client’s needs but also by being able to offer a complete service in planning and constructing the project.

Together with building homes for owner occupiers, we offer a service to developers who may wish to develop a site by re-subdividing an allotment and building a new home on the newly created block/s.

http://www.formathomes.com.au/aboutus

Weeks Peacock Homes

N/A

Weeks Peacock Quality Homes is a South Australian family owned business that has been building new homes for over 25 years. The company has grown to be one of South Australia's leading home builders and continues to challenge the market to deliver a quality product on all levels.

Weeks Peacock offer a range of new home designs tailored to suit a variety of lifestyles. Included in this range are single storey designs, two storey homes, sloping site designs and many more.

Rejoice Homes

8 Clovelly Avenue, Royal Park, SA, 5014

Rejoice Homes is an Adelaide based quality home builder. We can design and build custom designed prestige homes as well as low budget project homes. We will deliver quality products built above the standard requirements of the Building Code. We look forward to meeting you and building your dream home.

http://www.rejoicehomes.com.au/

Statesman Homes 25 North Terrace

We believe homes should be a great deal more than just machines for living. We set out to design extremely efficient and functional homes with an emphasis on space, light and clever detailing.

87

Hackney South Australia 5069

Our focus is to make the experience of building a new home as easy and enjoyable as possible. With over 180 designs to choose from, our experienced Building Consultants will help you to create the best designs solutions for your selected allotment at the best price.

Established for more than 10 years and affiliated with the State's largest home builder, Statesman Homes proudly stands by its 25-year structural guarantee on all new homes.

As a South Australian builder, we have intimate knowledge of local building conditions as well as finance options, appropriate house designs, land availability and soil types. With years of experience and unmatched buying power, we offer you designer homes that are unbeaten on price and quality.

http://www.statesman-homes.com.au/

Vortrak Constructions

342 Shepherds Hill Road, Blackwood, SA, 5011

Commencing in 1986, Vortrak Construction has assembled an enviable project portfolio that encompasses a Wide Range of Projects including Residential Renovations and Alterations, New Residences, Medium Density Residential Apartments, Shop Fit-outs, Commercial Buildings, Institutional Buildings and Specialised Projects

http://www.vortrak.com.au/index.html

Rendition Homes

503 Lower North East Road, Campbelltown, SA, 5074

Subdivide & rebuild - Knockdown & rebuild. We have the expertise. Rendition Homes will help you make the best choice for your block of land. Once the kids have gone, life takes you in a different direction, but that doesn’t mean you have to move. Whether you are looking to downsize without moving or are an investor looking to yield the most amount of money from the land, we’ll help determine the best outcome for you. In partnership with our dedicated design team and in conjunction with financial advice from Finance IQ, we will take you through the entire process, from initial consultation to design and then to building. Our team has a solid understanding of land potential, market values and can help you create a profitable outcome. It’s an opportunity to have the best of both worlds - maintaining your home and your lifestyle.

http://renditionhomes.com.au/

G & R Homes

264 Payneham Road Payneham South Australia 5070

G & R Homes specialise in high quality personalised homes, making sure they get it right every time. With superb workmanship by experienced craftsmen, G & R Homes offer an attention to detail that enables you to have complete piece of mind that standards will be exceeded every time. Whether it be solid brick or brick veneer, from ultra modern to authentic Victorian and everything in between G & R Homes will build your perfect home.

http://www.grhomes.com.au/index.asp

88

Medallion Homes

251 Glen Osmond Road, Frewville, SA, 5063

Your land might slope sideways or backwards, it could be narrow or wide, have trees to consider or guidelines to adhere to. Whatever the requirements, we love nothing more than creating a home that is the perfect fit for you and your land. Our design team will bring together all of the elements you love about Medallion Homes; impressive entrances, tall ceilings, lots of well-proportioned space, stylish innovations, original touches, spacious, yet efficient floor plans and uniquely styled exteriors that create a lasting impression. And, importantly, we’ll also give you a very accurate assessment of the project parameters and what can and can’t be achieved within your budget.

http://www.medallionhomes.com.au/

Desyn Homes

128a Mooringe Avenue

North Plympton

SA 5037

At Desyn Homes we listen to our clients, we work for our clients and we deliver to our client’s expectations. One size does not fit all. Whether it is a group of investment properties, a new family home or renovation, each project is managed with support, precision and tenacity.

http://www.desyn.com.au/

Endeavour Quality Homes

296 North East Road, Klemzig, SA

New Homes – Whether it’s your first, second, third or fourth home, we can assist you in building an affordable home that will suit your individual lifestyle needs. It can be single or multilevel, or it can even be split level to utilise the slope of your block. Developments –Developments are a cost effective way of making a sound investment and in maximising profit and increasing growth. From approvals, to demolition, to construction, to turn-key, we have a broad range of knowledge and have gained many contacts throughout the building industry that can help you to achieve this.

http://www.endeavourhomes.com.au/

Brazzale Constructions

The Brazzale Group combines two of Adelaide's specialists in residential construction and development; Brazzale Constructions and Western Property Group. Our range specialises, but is not limited to, courtyard, apartment and townhouse developments, including stunning residences within a stone’s throw of Adelaide’s accessible beaches. With substantial land holdings and a range of clean and modern designs that emanate style, we are bound to have the right mix of location and price for you. Residential properties built by the Brazzale Group are desired by owner-occupiers and investors alike, because the Brazzale Group is indeed worth investing in. We invite you to browse our website and get a taste for what could transpire to be your next property, then Contact Us to discuss how we can bring life to your dreams.

http://brazzalegroup.com.au/home/

89

Finesse Built Custom Homes and Extensions

1/79-81 Brighton Road, Glenelg

At Finesse Built, we are committed to creating unparalleled quality custom homes and extensions. With our focus on delivering a personalized building experience, we work closely with our clients to ensure that your ideas and dreams become a reality. With a customer service background combined with attention to detail in every aspect of the building process, you are guaranteed to have a memorable and magnificent building experience. Our team of builders and contractors are second to none and take the time with each and every home to produce the very best finishes possible. Company Director Matt Beckwith is hands on and personally deals with every client from start to finish. With exceptional attention to detail from design through to completion we are sure you will enjoy our building process.

We are also experts in joint venture developments and "House for Land Swap" deals.

If you think your property has subdivision potential come talk to us about how we can build you a house for free.

At Finesse Built, we can take all of the hard work and risk out of developing your property. Let us show you the possibilities.

http://www.finessebuilt.com.au/index.html

Donato Homes

We hope you can find everything you need. Donato Homes is an Adelaide based company, focused on providing high-quality service and customer satisfaction - with over 30 years of experience we will do everything we can to meet your expectations. Our company is based on the belief that our customers' needs are of the utmost importance. Our entire team is committed to meeting those needs. As a result, a high percentage of our business is from repeat customers and referrals. With a variety of offerings to choose from, we're sure you'll be happy working with us. Look around our website and if you have any comments or questions, please feel free to contact us.

http://www.donatohomes.net/default.html

Felmeri Homes

Felmeri Homes is a proudly 100% Australian family owned business. We take pride in our affordable quality homes to ensure customer satisfaction.

With over 25 years experience in the building industry we ensure a quality build that meets the expectations of our clients.

90

We provide a range of services which include new homes, renovations, alterations and additions.

Our building consultants will tailor a package to suit any budget from small individual homes to multi site developments.

http://www.felmeribuilders.com.au/index.htm

Aura Prestige Homes

216 Glen Osmond Road Fullarton SA 5063

Aura Prestige Homes have the proven experience and skills to undertake your next project. Whether it be the grace and charm of styles from an era past, or the bold and striking impressions of the modern style.

You are individual and we understand that your home is an extension of your personality, as it reflects your thoughts and feelings. Allow us the opportunity to transform your thoughts, feelings and dreams into your next home, combining good architectural form with practicality and function.

Our professional "design and construct" packages will guarantee your dreams will be linked with reality. So "surround yourself in something special" with an individually designed Aura Prestige home.

http://www.auraprestige.com.au/index.html

Bella Build and Design

74 Grange Road Welland SA 5007

Bella Build and Design construct new homes as well as renovation works and additions up to three levels. We provide Interior Design solutions for new homes and extensions. Medium density projects up to three storeys. Individually tailored projects to suit your design and construct requirements. We carry out small to large refurbishments, property maintenance and upgrades to existing sites.

http://www.bellabuildanddesign.com.au/residential.php

Melisi Homes

1 Meredith Street (Cnr Graves St.) Newton 5074

A family owned and operated building company in South Australia since 1962. As a registered member of the Housing Industry Association since 1975, we are a trusted company that has been building quality homes through out South Australia .

As a potential Melisi Homes client, you will not be just another lot number to a street address. Every home is designed and considered like our own.

We are proud to say that we are committed to you every step of the way, so you become a satisfied home owner. We take the time to talk to clients and understand their needs and free valuable advice is always at hand.

We believe that doing the right thing by our clients, providing excellent service and quality trades creates a happy owner that will enjoy living in their new home.

http://www.melisihomes.com.au/index.htm

91

All Exclusive Homes

Sera House

33 Dequetteville Terrace

Kent Town SA 5067

All Exclusive Homes is a boutique, design and construct residential building company. It specialises in design and quality construction of custom built:

Extensions

New Homes

Townhouses & Apartments

Homes of Integrity

Shop 6, 10-12 Hurtle Parade

Mawson Lakes S.A. 5095

We build custom design homes to suit every clients individual desires, as block sizes, gradients and peoples requirements are unique. Being a boutique builder enables us to offer individual services to meet our clients needs. We have an integral team, with the architect, engineer and builder working closely together to ensure we create your home in the most efficient and enjoyable way possible.

92

Appendix E: Household occupancy between census periods

93

Appendix F: Calculations relating to economic benefits of redirecting 20,000 dwellings to infill over 30 years

Infill annual

Greenfield Annual

Town-ships Annual

Re-directed greenfield to infill Additional jobs

Additional Labour and capital ($m)

Increase in gross wages and incomes to building sector ($m)

Infrastructure Cost savings ($m)

2009 3600 2400 1300 600 2887 $ 225 $ 118 $ 36

2010 3652 2348 1300 652 3135 $ 244 $ 128 $ 39

2011 3703 2297 1300 703 3384 $ 264 $ 139 $ 43

2012 3755 2245 1300 714 3434 $ 268 $ 141 $ 43

2013 3806 2194 1300 724 3485 $ 272 $ 143 $ 44

2014 3858 2142 1300 735 3535 $ 276 $ 145 $ 44

2015 3910 2090 1300 745 3586 $ 279 $ 147 $ 45

2016 3961 2039 1300 756 3637 $ 283 $ 149 $ 46

2017 4013 1987 1300 766 3687 $ 287 $ 151 $ 46

2018 4064 1936 1300 695 3342 $ 260 $ 137 $ 42

2019 4116 1884 1300 664 3195 $ 249 $ 131 $ 40

2020 4168 1832 1300 592 2850 $ 222 $ 117 $ 36

2021 4219 1781 1300 521 2505 $ 195 $ 103 $ 31

2022 4271 1729 1300 490 2358 $ 184 $ 97 $ 30

2023 4322 1678 1300 500 2408 $ 188 $ 99 $ 30

2024 4374 1626 1300 511 2459 $ 192 $ 101 $ 31

2025 4426 1574 1300 563 2707 $ 211 $ 111 $ 34

2026 4477 1523 1300 573 2758 $ 215 $ 113 $ 35

2027 4529 1471 1300 625 3006 $ 234 $ 123 $ 38

2028 4580 1420 1300 635 3057 $ 238 $ 125 $ 38

2029 4632 1368 1300 646 3107 $ 242 $ 127 $ 39

2030 4684 1316 1300 656 3158 $ 246 $ 129 $ 40

2031 4735 1265 1300 708 3406 $ 265 $ 139 $ 43

2032 4787 1213 1300 718 3456 $ 269 $ 142 $ 43

94

2033 4838 1162 1300 729 3507 $ 273 $ 144 $ 44

2034 4890 1110 1300 780 3755 $ 293 $ 154 $ 47

2035 4942 1058 1300 791 3806 $ 297 $ 156 $ 48

2036 4993 1007 1300 801 3856 $ 301 $ 158 $ 48

2037 5045 955 1300 853 4105 $ 320 $ 168 $ 52

2038 5100 900 1300 867 4173 $ 325 $ 171 $ 52

TOTALS 130450 49550 39000 20313 97,744 $ 7,617 $ 4,002 $ 1,229

Greenfield 88550

Present Value $ 4,519 $ 2,374 $ 729

Discount rate 4%