UDIA questions infill claims

Perth's land developers have stirred debate over the merits of urban infill by questioning the findings of a report commissioned by the Property Council of Australia and the Australian Greens.

The Urban Development Institute of Australia WA has rejected claims it costs government three times as much for a ‘greenfields’ lot than an infill lot, saying the data used in the report was outdated.

“The #designperth report puts forward a simplistic argument promoting infill development over greenfield development without due regard for how development is undertaken and funded here in Western Australia,” UDIA CEO Allison Hailes said.

Property Council WA division executive director Lino Iacomella said the comparative infrastructure costs in the report were prepared by Curtin University’s Sustainability Policy Institute using the most recent information, including data from 2001 to 2010.

“This showed that there were significant long-term infrastructure savings from doing more infill development,” he said.

More recent information, if it was available, may change the comparative numbers, but Mr Iacomella did not believe it would change the conclusions.

He said while the state government had set an infill target of 47 per cent by 2050, the latest data showed that only 30 per cent of new housing lots were created through infill.

“We need to take infill more seriously,” Mr Iacomella said.

“There is a growing frustration in the industry over the lack of investment in infrastructure, particularly public transport.”

The #designperth report highlighted three case studies on underutilised sites in Perth that showcased potential economic benefits that can be achieved through well-designed infill development.

Mr Iacomella said infrastructure investment created an up-front cost but led to long-term benefits.

The report found that, for every 1,000 lots developed in infill sites, a saving up to $94.5 million could be achieved.

It also said achieving Perth’s 47 per cent infill target by 2050 could deliver potential savings of $13 billion.

The UDIA acknowledged a role for infill but said it needed to be based on careful analysis.

“There are opportunities to make better use of existing infrastructure in areas where spare capacity exists,” Ms Hailes said.

“However, the cost of retrofitting and upgrading existing infrastructure in inner areas can be substantially more per dwelling than that of greenfields development and a full assessment of existing road, power, water and school capacity should be undertaken before any increases to the current target are considered.”

She also emphasised that land developers pay for some of the new infrastructure.

“Developers bear the majority of costs associated with road and utility infrastructure as well as making contributions to local community infrastructure, regardless of location,” Ms Hailes said.

The debate over infill coincided with state government amendments to the charges paid by developers to link new projects to water supply infrastructure.

Water Minister Mia Davies said the charges would be reduced from $4,064 to $2,150 per lot.

“This reduction reflects the decrease in the costs incurred by the Water Corporation to provide water supply infrastructure,” she said.

However, wastewater infrastructure contributions are set to increase from $1,363 per lot to $2,334 per lot.