Journal articles and other professional publications

Gary Owen Garner and Veronica Rall.

20th Annual European Real Estate Society Conference. ERES: Conference. Vienna, Austria, 2013.

Purpose - Virtually all nations in the world have 'urbanized' in most or all of the last 50 years. However, urban-to-rural migration has become a recent and prominent occurrence in many developed countries. This change - known as 'counter-urbanization' – typically observes the movement of urban-based businesses and professional people to rural areas to live and/or work for improved quality of life. A much less common form - emerging to be taking place in Canterbury, New Zealand - is demonstrated in the form of population increases in more remote rural areas, typically underpinned by new entrants into 'bona-fide' farming and related occupations. This research is designed to identify the ebb and flow patterns of such rural population drift and then ascertain how the impacts (particularly property value effects) of such phenomenon can be determined.

Design/methodology/approach - Having completed a literature review, the study conducts an exploratory study of the primary data, and then proceeds to examine the value and process of devolving to a longitudinal (correlational research) study using panel data, i.e. time series data with some cross sectional referencing involving property values and population demographics measured over time (multidimensional econometric analysis).

Findings - This study questions whether the 'counter-urbanization' phenomenon in Canterbury is being driven by the advent of dairy conversions and the labour force required to locally provide related goods and services to that industry. Whilst the drifting patterns can be readily determined, less apparent are relationship dynamics between human population drift and property values which might be better explained by variables outside those specifically examined in this study.

Research limitations/implications - This research is designed to specifically exclude 'peri-urban' area analysis relating to the growing popularity of lifestyle blocks, particularly in the proximity of urban areas where daily commuting is possible, i.e. rural areas with moderate to high urban influence.

Originality/value - The observation, recording and analysis of rural drift impact in remoter areas have important implications in terms of infrastructure framework and community development. There are also significant inferences with regards financial and corporate restructuring for business operating in these areas. 

Download publication

Gary Owen Garner

19th Annual European Real Estate Society Conference. ERES: Conference. Edinburgh, Scotland, 2012.

Developer infrastructure contributions are regularly cited as the most significant contributor of planning or development costs. However, other non-financial barriers are also emerging as significant impactors. This includes inconsistent planning requirements, development assessment procedures, and conflicts between developers and local councils. Such findings have underpinned a diverse range of planning reforms currently underway in various regions throughout Australia, many of which are specifically designed to target these ìnon-financialî barriers. Examples include systematic enhancements intended to provide greater standardisation, and reduced administrative requirements, system complexity and timeliness. However, aside from the advent of new infrastructure charging regimes that address cost barriers, it is apparent that these reforms actually address another invasive impact relating to holding costs - rather than the infrastructure charging regime itself. It is indisputable that developer infrastructure costs strongly impact housing costs and therefore affordability: and, compared to holding costs, they are much more visible and easily quantified. In contrast, holding costs may seem less tangible as they typically stem from issues revolving around uncertainty, timeliness and inconsistency. Nonetheless, it can be established that they represent a potentially formidable financial barrier. In determining the impact of holding costs, this paper presents a number of operating scenarios and in the process identifies the financial benefits arising from planning reform and intervention. Whilst in many cases it may be true that development contributions expended towards infrastructure represent the largest planning related cost, their existence also impacts part of the holding cost equation which together with its other elements may be demonstrated to rival apparently more pervasive, obvious costs involved in property development.

Download publication
Downlaod publication (alternate)

Gary Owen Garner

19th Annual Pacific-Rim Real Estate Society Conference. Melbourne Australia, 13-16 January 2013

The impact of holding costs on greenfield residential housing developments is becoming increasingly recognised as a major factor affecting housing affordability. This has led a number of jurisdictions throughout Australia to examine methods of streamlining procedures and processes (“red tape”) in ways that curtail otherwise protracted regulatory appraisal procedures along the property development pipeline. Using a structured anonymous questionnaire, one major initiative in Queensland seeking to redress “red tape” - the development of electronic development application processes – is tested by gauging industry participant’s perceptions of their effectiveness. This information is also used to examine linkages that exist between various planning instruments, the length of regulatory assessment periods, and perceptions concerning housing affordability more generally. In addition, these results are able to be triangulated against quantitative data modelling focussed on the consequences of extended assessment periods as a typically critical component of holding costs.

Download publication

Gary Owen Garner

16th Pacific Rim Real Estate Society Conference Wellington, New Zealand 24-27 January 2010

There are increasing indications that the contribution of holding costs and its impact on housing affordability is very significant. Their importance and perceived high level impact can be gauged from considering the unprecedented level of attention policy makers have given them recently. This may be evidenced by the embedding of specific strategies to address burgeoning holding costs (and particularly those cost savings associated with streamlining regulatory assessment) within statutory instruments such as the Queensland Housing Affordability Strategy, and the South East Queensland Regional Plan. However, several key issues require further investigation. Firstly, the computation and methodology behind the calculation of holding costs varies widely. In fact, it is not only variable, but in some instances completely ignored. Secondly, some ambiguity exists in terms of the inclusion of various elements of holding costs and assessment of their relative contribution. Perhaps this may in part be explained by their nature: such costs are not always immediately apparent. They are not as visible as more tangible cost items associated with greenfield development such as regulatory fees, government taxes, acquisition costs, selling fees, commissions and others. Holding costs are also more difficult to evaluate since for the most part they must be ultimately assessed over time in an ever-changing environment based on their strong relationship with opportunity cost which is in turn dependant, inter alia, upon prevailing inflation and / or interest rates. This paper seeks to provide a more detailed investigation of those elements related to holding costs, and in so doing determine the size of their impact specifically on the end user. It extends research in this area clarifying the extent to which holding costs impact housing affordability. Geographical diversity indicated by the considerable variation between various planning instruments and the length of regulatory assessment periods suggests further research should adopt a case study approach in order to test the relevance of theoretical modelling conducted.

Download publication
Access publication (PRRES)
Access publication (QUT)

Gary Owen Garner

Invited paper: 20th Annual PRRES Conference, Christchurch New Zealand · Jan 1, 2014

Over recent years it may be readily demonstrated that increasing prices being paid for residential accommodation in new housing estates have done little to assist the housing affordability problem. A critical question to be asked is whether this might simply represent profiteering by developers, or are there genuine increases in underlying cost structures to an extent that force developers to pass theses costs on? Moreover, are such costs actually passed on, and to whom? As to the nature of these costs, are developer infrastructure contributions - regularly cited as the most significant contributor of planning or development costs – all-pervasive? Or, are there other non-financial barriers - such as inconsistent planning requirements, development assessment procedures, and conflicts between developers and local councils – emerging as almost equally significant impactors? Research conducted over recent years in Australia suggests that whilst in many cases it may be true that development contributions for infrastructure represent the single largest planning related cost, their existence also impacts the holding cost equation. Such findings - recognising the significance of holding costs - have underpinned a diverse range of planning reforms in Australia, including systematic enhancements intended to reduce administrative requirements, system complexity and timeliness. In short, it has seen the instigation of replacement organisations, and the implementation of new systems and procedures all designed to reduce “red tape”. It is apparent that most of these reforms directly address the invasive impacts of holding costs - which can be established as a potentially formidable financial barrier, even though they typically present in a less visible form (since they typically stem from issues revolving around uncertainty, timeliness and inconsistency). This paper examines whether similar operating scenarios exist in New Zealand and moreover, are the financial benefits arising from such planning reforms and intervention transplantable in this Tasman neighbour?

Download publication

Gary Owen Garner

Australia & New Zealand Property Journal Vol 3 No7 · Sep 1, 2012

Access publication
Download publication

Gary Owen Garner

Queensland University of Technology (PhD thesis, Queensland University of Technology) · 18 June 2012

The position of housing demand and supply is not consistent. The Australian situation counters the experience demonstrated in many other parts of the world in the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis, with residential housing prices proving particularly resilient. A seemingly inexorable housing demand remains a critical issue affecting the socio-economic landscape. Underpinned by high levels of population growth fuelled by immigration, and further buoyed by sustained historically low interest rates, increasing income levels, and increased government assistance for first home buyers, this strong housing demand level ensures problems related to housing affordability continue almost unabated. A significant, but less visible factor impacting housing affordability relates to holding costs. Although only one contributor in the housing affordability matrix, the nature and extent of holding cost impact requires elucidation: for example, the computation and methodology behind the calculation of holding costs varies widely - and in some instances completely ignored. In addition, ambiguity exists in terms of the inclusion of various elements that comprise holding costs, thereby affecting the assessment of their relative contribution. Such anomalies may be explained by considering that assessment is conducted over time in an ever-changing environment. A strong relationship with opportunity cost - in turn dependant inter alia upon prevailing inflation and / or interest rates - adds further complexity. By extending research in the general area of housing affordability, this thesis seeks to provide a detailed investigation of those elements related to holding costs specifically in the context of midsized (i.e. between 15-200 lots) greenfield residential property developments in South East Queensland. With the dimensions of holding costs and their influence over housing affordability determined, the null hypothesis H0 that holding costs are not passed on can be addressed. Arriving at these conclusions involves the development of robust economic and econometric models which seek to clarify the componentry impacts of holding cost elements. An explanatory sequential design research methodology has been adopted, whereby the compilation and analysis of quantitative data and the development of an economic model is informed by the subsequent collection and analysis of primarily qualitative data derived from surveying development related organisations. Ultimately, there are significant policy implications in relation to the framework used in Australian jurisdictions that promote, retain, or otherwise maximise, the opportunities for affordable housing.

Access publication (National Library of Australia)
Access publication (Queensland University of Technology)

Gary Owen Garner, and Chris Eves

International Conference on Construction and Real Estate Management, Royal on the Park Hotel, Brisbane, Queensland · Oct 18, 2010

Many of the costs associated with greenfield residential development are apparent and tangible. For example, regulatory fees, government taxes, acquisition costs, selling fees, commissions and others are all relatively easily identified since they represent actual costs incurred at a given point in time. However, identification of holding costs are not always immediately evident since by contrast they characteristically lack visibility. One reason for this is that, for the most part, they are typically assessed over time in an ever-changing environment. In addition, wide variations exist in development pipeline components: they are typically represented from anywhere between a two and over sixteen years time period - even if located within the same geographical region. Determination of the starting and end points, with regards holding cost computation, can also prove problematic. Furthermore, the choice between application of prevailing inflation, or interest rates, or a combination of both over time, adds further complexity. A review of the literature reveals attempts to identify holding cost components are limited. Their quantification (in terms of relative weight or proportionate cost to a development project) is even less apparent; in fact, the computation and methodology behind the calculation of holding costs varies widely and in some instances completely ignored. In addition, it may be demonstrated that ambiguities exists in terms of the inclusion of various elements of holding costs and assessment of their relative contribution. This paper seeks to build on earlier investigations into those elements related to holding costs, providing theoretical modelling of the size of their impact - specifically on the end user. Although this research stops short of cross-referencing with a regional or international comparison study, an improved understanding of the relationship between holding costs, regulatory charges, and housing affordability results.

Access to publication (Queensland University of Technology)
Access to publication (Hong Kong Polytechnic University)
Access to publication (Google Books)

Gary Owen Garner

Urban Developer · Sep 27, 2010

Research is now emerging which exposes the significance and extent to which even small shifts in the regulatory assessment period, and other factors, affect housing affordability. It suggests that the extent of its significance has not been hitherto completely demonstrated.

Access publication (QUT)

Gary Owen Garner

14th International Research Symposium on Advancement of Construction Management and Real Estate, 29-31 October 2009, Nanjing · Oct 6, 2009

It is widely held that strong relationships exist between housing, economic status, and well being. Therefore, recent events emerging from the United States, culminating in widespread housing stock surpluses in that country and others, threaten to destabilise many aspects related to individuals and community. However, despite global impact, the position of housing demand and supply is not consistent. The Australian position provides a strong contrast whereby continued strong housing demand generally remains a critical issue affecting the socio-economic landscape. Underpinned by strong levels of immigration, and further buoyed by sustained historically low interest rates, increasing income levels, and increased government assistance for first home buyers, this strong housing demand ensures elements related to housing affordability continue to gain prominence. A significant, but less visible factor impacting housing affordability – particularly new housing development – relates to holding costs. These costs are in many ways “hidden” and cannot always be easily identified. Although it is only one contributor, the nature and extent of its impact requires elucidation. In its simplest form, it commences with a calculation of the interest or opportunity cost of land holding. However, there is significantly more complexity for major new developments - particularly greenfield development. Analysis suggests that even small shifts in primary factors impacting holding costs can appreciably affect housing affordability. Those factors of greatest significance not only include interest rates and the rate of inflation, but even less apparent factors such as the regulatory assessment period. These are not just theoretical concepts but real, measurable price drivers. This paper suggests the stability and sustainability of growing, new communities require this problem to be acknowledged and accurately identified if the well being of such communities is to be achieved.

Access publication (QUT)

Gary Owen Garner

1. Queensland Planner · ISSN: 0729-3682. Jun 9, 2009

2. In Albrecht, K (Ed.) Proceedings of the Planning Institute of Australia Queensland State Conference: Looking Forward Outback 2008. Planning Institute of Australia, Australia, pp. 1-22.

Housing affordability is gaining increasing prominence in the Australian socio-economic landscape, despite strong economic growth and prosperity. It is a major consideration for any new development. However, it is multi-dimensional, has many facets, is complex and interwoven. One factor widely held to impact housing affordability is holding costs. Although it is only one contributor, the nature and extent of its impact requires clarification. It is certainly more multifarious than simple calculation of the interest or opportunity cost of land holding. For example, preliminary analysis suggests that even small shifts in the regulatory assessment period can significantly affect housing affordability. Other costs associated with “holding” also impact housing affordability, however these costs cannot always be easily identified. Nevertheless it can be said that ultimately the real impact is felt by those whom can least afford it - new home buyers whom can be relatively easily pushed into the realms of un-affordability.

Access publication (Queensland Planner)
Access publication (QUT) - conference paper

Gary Owen Garner

International Cities Town Centres & Communities Society 2008 Conference, 7–10 October 2008, Sydney Olympic Park, Sydney. · Apr 16, 2009. In Henshaw, K (Ed.) ICTC Society Inc CD of Proceedings 2008 Conference. Menay Pty Ltd, CD Rom, pp. 1-30.

Housing affordability issues are widely acknowledged as a major consideration for any new greenfield development. Its importance has captured the attention of the wider population, with the issue ranking highly across the broader political agenda. Aside from playing a major role in fostering industry and employment, it is central to meeting the expectations of burgeoning populations, particularly young people, first home owners and the socially disadvantaged - all of whom can be relatively easily pushed into housing stress.----

The growing body of literature on the subject has identified a number of multi-dimensional factors including macro structural / micro-behavioural variables such as interest rates, construction cost, income levels, buyer’s decision, intentions, land supply, housing prices, and a range of other factors.----

One factor that has been widely held to impact housing affordability is that of holding costs: typically passed on by the developer, and reflected in purchase prices paid. There are also other significant costs associated with “holding” that inevitably act to drive up prices, and therefore impact housing affordability. A preliminary model indicates that the financial impacts might be of greater significance than current analysis like that undertaken for the Queensland Housing Affordability Strategy might otherwise suggest, especially where time taken for regulatory assessment is excessive. These findings indicate that even small shifts in assessment period can significantly affect housing affordability. Ultimately, there are significant policy implications for changing the framework used in Australian jurisdictions that might result in promoting, retaining, or otherwise maximising the opportunities for affordable housing.

Access publication

Gary Owen Garner

International Conference on Infrastructure Development and the Environment (Iciden-Abuja 2006), September 2006, Abuja, Nigeria, Africa · Apr 27, 2007

Living conditions are widely acknowledged as a major contributor to the health and well being of particular population groups, with strong relationships existing between environment and human physical condition. The evidence suggests poor health is directly linked to poor housing and housing infrastructure. People with unmet housing needs tend to be socio-economically disadvantaged, experience higher death rates, poor health, and are more likely to have serious chronic illnesses. It therefore follows that the ecological aspect is a major driver in public health, and has even been used as a primary measurement tool in determining the extent of human happiness, i.e. quality of life. The ecological perspective also gives rise to a growing emergence of the importance of the modern "interdisciplinary approach" underpinning trans-disciplinary research and professional practice. This is an integrated model that combines biological, cultural, economic, political, psychological and social factors. By default, it cuts across a number of disciplines including property economics, town planning, engineering and medicine. Whilst much of the research conducted in this area has found statistical associations existing between housing aspects (tenure, dwelling quality and type, home and location) and health outcomes, there has been little investigation into determining how the various aspects relate to one another for particular population groups. Endeavouring to place the available research specifically in an Australian context, this paper provides an in depth commentary on the literature and in particular the key health issues related to sustainable housing models. More importantly, it enables a comparison and determination of the real drivers and relationships that exist between selected sectors of the population.

Access publication (QUT)
Download publication (direct)
Download publication (QUT)

Gary Owen Garner and Hoon Han

2nd Australasian Housing Researchers’ Conference, 20–22 June 2007, The University of Queensland, Brisbane. · Apr 16, 2007

Demographic shifts in the Australian population - characterised by several significant changes
- ageing population
- increased life expectancy
- lowering mortality
- reduced household population density
This is concurrent with global trends of continuing urbanization and population aging
This paper looks at the impact on housing requirements of such changes – in particular the composition and location of the “older Australian” (age 65+) population.

Access publication (QUT)
Download presentation (QUT)
Download publication

Gary Owen Garner

Refereed paper delivered to the Pacific Rim Real Estate Conference, Auckland N.Z. 2006

It is widely acknowledged that a strong relationship exists between environment and human physical condition, with living conditions in particular contributing to the health and well being of particular population groups. More specifically, various research conducted throughout Australia and elsewhere has concluded that there are strong linkages between housing and health. For example, Currie and Carapetis (2000) infer that poor health is directly linked to poor housing and housing infrastructure.

People with unmet housing needs tend to be socio-economically disadvantaged, and experience higher death rates, poor health, and are more likely to have serious chronic illnesses1 . Evidence suggests strong linkages between poor housing and infrastructure, and subsequent impact on health. However, whilst much of the research conducted has found statistical associations existing between housing aspects (tenure, dwelling quality and type, home and location) and health outcomes, there has been little investigation into determining how the various aspects relate to one another for particular population groups. Further, commonalities that may exist between both indigenous and non-indigenous communities have implications for improved planning especially in the area of public housing assistance.

This paper provides an in depth commentary on the literature and in particular the key health issues related to housing. More importantly, it endeavours to research specifically in an Australian context enabling a comparison and determination of the real drivers and relationships that exist between several groups – the indigenous community, and selected sectors of the non-indigenous population. It will therefore cut across several disciplines including property economics, town planning, engineering and medicine.

Download publication
Access publication (QUT)

Garner, Gary & Layton, Hollie

Supporting DA's: the need for economic needs analysis. THG, Australia, Queensland, Brisbane. (2008)

All savvy Property Developers are aware of the statutory governing act “Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA)” that regulates any form of development in Queensland. The purpose of the act is to provide the framework for Queensland’s planning and development assessment system. The lodgment of a Development Application (DA) is a requirement for all forms of development, for example, carrying out building work , operational work , reconfiguring a lot or making a material change of use. The Integrated Development Assessment System (IDAS) is the system established under the IPA to manage the lodgement and assessment of most development related activities, including planning, building, environmental, coastal and water management. IPA Planning schemes are prepared by Councils, with input from State government agencies and establish the policy for managing the use and development of land in their local government area. Planning schemes also integrate State, regional and local development strategies and recommendations for the local government area (accessed 080208, The State of Queensland- Department of Infrastructure and Planning) These local Planning schemes in Queensland use tools such as zoning maps, overlay maps, development assessment tables, codes and local planning scheme policies to implement the desired outcomes of the IPA sought through development. When submitting a DA applicant’s must demonstrate how a proposal satisfies the Development Vision, Performance Criteria and Performance Standards contained in the Development Guidelines. Generally, the scale and nature of a proposed development will determine the complexity and nature of the application required, and the quantum of information included in the application. Specialist consultants are usually engaged, especially in larger or more complex projects, to assist in providing technical detail and addressing specific licensing issues. Increasingly, assessment authorities are also insisting upon the provision of economic and social needs analysis. This ensures that a particular project is able to genuinely respond to the needs of a community, and at the same time provide an appraisal of the economic benefits that the project brings. This often involves the use of various techniques which interrogate a wide range of data sets. This includes, for example, population and demographic profiling, economic modeling and forecasting, and community trend analysis. In recognition of this, THG has established a Regional and Urban Economic Planning unit, under the management of Mr Gary Garner - a lecturer in Property & Urban Development at the Queensland University of Technology, and an expert in urban economics. The response to date has been very positive. The provision of economic needs analysis – even where it has not been specifically required by the relevant authority – has greatly assisted the progression of a number of projects. Recent examples include various analysis to support the bringing forward of timeframes for establishment of a railway station in the Gold Coast region, the early and simultaneous sequencing of a new multi-precinct development in south-east Queensland, the inclusion of land for urban development that is outside the urban footprint, and the impact of a project on the viability of the local sugar industry in far north Queensland. The evidence seems to be that a proactive approach in providing this kind of information is more likely to bring about a positive result. It has the added benefit to provide useful feedback to the developer themselves - providing a cross-check of project viability, the likely risks to be encountered, and ways those risks might be mitigated. It is a win-win situation for all.

Access to publication