• Full Story

House costs driven by lack of land: report

Print

Fri, 16 Dec 2011 2:30p.m.

During the house price boom of 2001 to 2006, there was a 150 percent increase in the number of households renting

During the house price boom of 2001 to 2006, there was a 150 percent increase in the number of households renting

By Pattrick Smellie

New Zealand's high cost of houses is driven mostly by a lack of new land being released for development in fast-growing areas, says the Productivity Commission.

With the dream of home ownership slipping out of many young New Zealanders' grasp, it calls for better co-ordinated release of new land for subdivision, more large-scale home construction projects, and better performance from local body regulators, who often took too long, charged too much, or were not clear about their expectations in granting building consents.

Issuing its first draft report for public submissions, the commission dismisses much of the concern that tax advantages have driven house prices.

"Housing is less tax-advantaged than is often suggested," says the report.

"The present tax position is long-standing and can be expected to have been subsumed into house prices long ago."

The report highlights that during the house price boom of 2001 to 2006, there was a 150 percent increase in the number of households renting, who might in earlier times be expected to become first home owners.

"In some parts of the country, the `starter' house that once eased New Zealanders into property ownership seems to be a thing of the past," the report says.

The report challenges the current preference for urban development to be ring-fenced because of fears of urban sprawl.

"Probably the single biggest source of adverse impact on housing affordability is insufficient release of new land for housing," the commission says, with land purchase accounting for an average 60 percent of the cost of a new house in Auckland, and 40 percent in the rest of the country.

While intensified land use would be part of the answer to New Zealand's housing costs, the reality remained that "conventional homes on greenfield sites are generally cheaper to build than infill, multi-storey or brownfield (underused or abandoned) development", the commission says.

BusinessDesk

NZN

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

18 Dec 2011 11:55p.m.

Daniel wrote:

They should praise the auckland council for taking a strong stand against further sprawl. We all pay through the nose to support the masses amount of further required infrastructure and of course the added load of car traffic. Of course the contracting companies are pretty happy about that though. Lets also stop them building further 'affordable housing' as we dont need a another series of ultra cheap housing that has no lastly appeal a la the chipboard and boxes of west habour and south auckland, how about a shake up of the ownership of existing housing pool so its more about houses for families, not houses to fund the retirement plans of a few. Captial gains tax on investment properties yes please.

18 Dec 2011 01:00p.m.

steve wrote:

Has anyone considered the costs due government and council requirements .The escalation in archietectual details required,engineers reports ,peer reviews ,consent fees ,resource consent and developers fees. It is getting to the stage where the prestart costs are approximately 25% of total build.In otherwords the $400,000 costs equals $300,000 bricks and morter.Also the rise in GST has also added a disinsentive the build or renovate. The employment of check list building consents staff rather than ex qualified builders have made the above requirements more necessary as if off loades council responsiblity . Commonsense no longer prevails with building consents as it used to .

16 Dec 2011 03:08p.m.

Bruce wrote:

What a strange report. After searching and finding the Productivity commissions website and reading the report. It seems to dismiss the 2001-2007 housing boom and the over-inflating "Bubble" that it created as having no significant impact on high housing costs in New Zealand. Housing prices rose and to some extent are still rising because of the "Bubble", investors are still investing heavily in Housing. They are not investing, then wanting absolutely no return on their investments. They are demanding a high return for their investments. The report also mentions the Government requested the report. I wonder if the Government requested this injury to combat Labours promise of a "Capital Gains Tax" as the report mentions " tax-advantage is much smaller than often suggested". The building material costs are high, I will admit that. Back in 1980, Wheni was having our first home built, The cost of a new house was rising by $200 per week back then. The lack of land for housing would in reality have a very minuscule effect on the cost of a new house in NZ. There are too many other factors in consideration.