Zoned for Housing. But Can It Be Delivered?
- Jul 20
- 5 min read
The Australian Zoning Atlas brings new evidence to the housing supply debate. Its findings raise an important question: if governments support greater density within the existing urban footprint, why does so much residential land remain restricted from delivering it?
Infinitum Partners congratulates YIMBY Melbourne and Jonathan O’Brien on the release of the Australian Zoning Atlas.
In a debate often driven by ideology, self-interest and historical planning decisions, the Atlas provides an important evidence-based contribution.
It identifies 86% of residential land within 20 kilometres of Roma Street Station as highly restricted, meaning it is subject to a two-storey height limit, minimum title area / frontage requirements, designated for low-density or detached housing, protected by a heritage overlay, or affected by a combination of these controls.
The Atlas also finds that 66% of Brisbane’s residential land is restricted to detached housing, preventing townhouses from being developed across much of the city.
These findings expose a fundamental tension in Brisbane’s approach to growth.
Tall Over Sprawl - But Where Can Density Go?
Governments continue to support a “tall over sprawl” policy position, seeking to accommodate population growth within the existing urban footprint rather than allowing cities to expand indefinitely.
Infinitum Partners supports this principle, but only where the areas identified for future growth can genuinely support and incentivise housing delivery.
At present, much of Brisbane’s residential land remains constrained by planning controls that limit housing diversity. New supply is therefore directed towards a relatively small number of centres and higher-density locations, many of which carry challenges around land assembly, infrastructure, construction costs and market feasibility.
Protecting the urban footprint while restricting most of the residential land within it is not a sustainable housing strategy.
The Devil Is in the Detail
It is often argued that planning is not the principal barrier to housing supply because there are already more development approvals than the industry can deliver.
The devil is always in the detail.
Obtaining an approval, where one is possible, can be difficult, expensive and time-consuming, with the risk overwhelmingly carried by the applicant.
Does this sound like a system designed to support housing?
The construction supply chain needs to deliver, and there are many other acknowledged contributors to housing supply. However, an approval is worthless if the application remains caught in the process until the property cycle has moved on.
It is equally worthless if development conditions render the project unviable or if it becomes caught in a lengthy and costly third-party appeal.
Infinitum Partners has similarly evidenced these issues through our contributions to government planning policy, most recently in our submission on Brisbane City Council’s More Homes Sooner amendment and our contribution to the City of Moreton Bay’s early consultation on its new planning scheme.
Planned Capacity Is Not Actual Capacity
The financial sustainability of local governments is central to decisions about how much land is zoned for growth and how the supporting infrastructure will be funded. This can create a reluctance to zone more land than forecasts suggest is required.
However, successive planning schemes calibrated around “tall over sprawl” have not always achieved their intended outcomes.
Not every theoretically developable site will be available, feasible or brought to market during the life of a planning scheme. Historical analysis of how much planned capacity has actually been delivered can help local governments understand this difference and provide confidence that broader upzoning will not necessarily result in unmanageable growth.
Zoning more land does not mean every site will be developed. It provides greater choice and allows housing to follow the path of greatest feasibility.
The IP Fix
Meaningful improvement requires coordinated reform across zoning, development assessment, infrastructure funding and local government incentives.
Remove low-density zoning from unconstrained urban land
Low-density zoning should not apply to residential land within the urban footprint unless it is justified by a genuine flooding, environmental, vegetation or heritage constraint.
Once these matters have been appropriately protected, residential land should support a broader range of housing.
This does not mean allowing high-rise development throughout established suburbs. It means enabling well-designed townhouses, terraces, duplexes and other low-to-medium-density housing that responds appropriately to the existing neighbourhood.
Replace minimum lot sizes with built-form controls
Minimum lot sizes are a blunt planning instrument.
Planning controls should instead focus on the form and function of housing, including its relationship with adjoining properties, streets, landscaping and neighbourhood character. A practical example of how this could work is allowing for combined development applications to be lodged for both the subdivision and built form components (i.e. small lot dwelling houses or townhouses) to give Council the necessary comfort around built form outcomes.
This would enable housing products that better respond to contemporary household sizes, lifestyles and affordability needs.
Simplify housing assessment
A house on a lot lawfully created for a residential purpose should not require a further development application. Whether this be achieved through zoning, subdivision application or, a combined subdivision and built form application, these are the opportunities to consider and facilitate housing supply. Setting up a process with countless ‘hurdles’ that can inevitably not be meet, that subsequently then require multiple development applications is not supporting housing supply.
These housing applications then make up a disproportionate share of council development assessment workloads, in excess of 50% for Brisbane City Council. A structured, risk-managed third-party certification model could manage straightforward housing applications while freeing council resources for more complex assessments and strategic planning.
Reform third-party appeal rights
Housing proposals in residential areas should continue to be publicly notified where required. However, third-party appeal rights should be removed where the proposal is consistent with the intended residential use of the land. A practical example of this is within PDA’s which require public notification suitable to allow for EDQ / Council to hear and understand community concerns but there are no third party appeal rights to stall development anticipated for the land.
Appeals can add considerable time, cost and uncertainty to otherwise supportable projects. If governments expect the market to deliver more housing, applicants need greater certainty when operating within appropriately zoned residential areas.
Incentivise productivity and cultural change
Policy reform alone will not be enough. Cultural change is also required.
Local government access to dedicated state and federal growth funding should be linked to measurable productivity improvements, including lower levels of assessment, better-performing planning schemes and reduced development assessment timeframes.
Broaden the way growth infrastructure is funded
The cost of growth should not fall disproportionately on purchasers of new housing through infrastructure charges.
There is an intergenerational inequity in requiring new residents to carry these costs, particularly where many established properties did not make an equivalent contribution when they were developed.
Replacing infrastructure charges with a modest growth-area levy across all rateable properties within a local government area deserves serious consideration.
A broader funding base could generate more reliable infrastructure revenue and recognise that established communities also benefit from the infrastructure, services and economic activity created by growth. Access to complementary state and federal infrastructure funding could help local governments manage the financial and political transition to this model.
Our View
The Australian Zoning Atlas demonstrates the scale of the restrictions embedded within our cities.
The answer is not density at any cost. Flooding, environmental constraints, significant vegetation, heritage and neighbourhood context must continue to inform good planning.
However, where residential land is appropriately located and unconstrained, the planning system should support more housing choices and clearer pathways to delivery.
If Brisbane is committed to “tall over sprawl”, more of the existing urban footprint must be allowed to carry its share of future growth.
That requires broader zoning reform, greater housing diversity, simpler assessment, cultural change and infrastructure funding that actively supports delivery.
Planned capacity is not actual capacity. The success of our planning system should ultimately be measured not by how many homes can theoretically be accommodated, but by how many appropriate and affordable homes can actually be delivered.
