Journal articles and other professional publications

Gary Owen Garner and Patricia Kuczynska

Property Professional, Autumn 2022. Property Institute of New Zealand · Mar 24, 2022

This article looks at the role of valuers in the fast-moving area of climate change and its effects.

The emergence of issues surrounding climate change is a swiftly moving area in which most people would agree is increasingly commanding the attention of regulators, the media, environmentalists and the general public. Equally, it is also an evolving matter demanding earnest consideration by New Zealand businesses. Following the 2021 United Nations COP26 Climate Change Conference, a recent Knight Frank report points out that almost every country on earth is now working to tackle climate change. Moreover, this report (Harley et al., 2021) looks specifically at how the world of real estate is adapting, and how the property market might look in the future.

Download publication

Jane H. Simpson and Gary O. Garner

Proceedings of the 20th Annual Pacific-Rim Real Estate Society Conference, Christchurch, New Zealand, 19-22 January 2014

According to economic theory the ownership structure of an entity impacts on its governance, behaviour, and performance. Globally, governments and investors have been demanding that Listed Property Vehicles (LPVs) improve these attributes, and as such, such entities have adopted Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) structures or other optimal structures, such as a Stapled Security structure. Following this global trend, New Zealand’s LPVs – generally considered by investors to be the equivalent of REITs - began focusing on their ownership structures, including unit trust and company structures. This focus has more recently resulted in a number of the listed property trusts converting to company structures.

The purpose of the longitudinal study is to examine the composition (types of ownership structures: during the 30 years to November 2013) and the significance (market capitalisation: during the 20 years to November 2013) of the New Zealand Stock Exchange (NZX) Property Sector, which was established in April 1982. Constituents of this Sector were initially established as companies and it was not until December 1993 that unit trust structures emerged: trusts and companies have continued to contribute to the value of the NZX Property Sector since December 1993.

Methodology for this study involved developing three new monthly market capitalisation series over the study period for the Listed Property Trusts (LPTs), the Listed Property Investment Companies (LPICs), and the overall LPV Sector. Data for these series and for the existing monthly NZX All market capitalisation series were sourced from the NZX. Comparative analysis undertaken between these series demonstrate that the LPV Sector is now a major NZ asset class - having grown in significance and now accounting for approximately 9% of the value of the NZX. Indeed, companies presently make a greater contribution than trusts to the value of the overall LPV Sector. Further, the results highlight that the Property Sector was dominated by companies from December 1993 to 1999, at which point the trusts, having matured and grown in number, became the dominant sub-sector for the next 13 years (until June 2013). These findings reveal the major contribution that trusts and companies have made to New Zealand’s listed property market. It provides government, investors, LPVs and researchers with a better understanding of the historical significance of these listed property ownership structures.

Download publication

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

Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference, 18 – 21 January  2009, Sydney, Australia

The acknowledgement of state significance in relation to development projects can result in special treatment by regulatory authorities, particularly in terms of environmental compliance and certain economic and other government support measures. However, defining just what constitutes a “significant project”, or a project of “state significance”, varies considerably between Australian states. In terms of establishing threshold levels, in Queensland there is even less clarity. Despite this lack of definition, the implications of “state significance” can nevertheless be considerable. For example, in Queensland if the Coordinator-General declares a project to be a “significant project” under the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971, the environmental impact assessment process may become more streamlined – potentially circumventing certain provisions under The Integrated Planning Act 1997. If the project is not large enough to be so deemed, an extractive resource under the State Planning Policy 2/07 - Protection of Extractive Resources 2007 may be considered to be of State or regional significance and subsequently designated as a “Key Resource Area”. As a consequence, such a project is afforded some measure of resource protection but remains subject to the normal assessment process under the Integrated Development Assessment System, as well as the usual requirements of the vegetation management codes, and other regulations. This paper explores the various meanings of “state significance” in Queensland and the ramifications for development projects in that state. It questions the existence of a strategic threat to the delivery of an already over-stretched infrastructure

Download publication

Gary Owen Garner

Property Management · ISSN: 0263-7472. Oct 7, 2010

The acknowledgement of state significance in relation to development projects can result in special treatment by regulatory authorities, particularly in terms of environmental compliance and certain economic and other government support measures. However, defining just what constitutes a “significant project”, or a project of “state significance”, varies considerably between Australian states. In terms of establishing threshold levels, in Queensland there is even less clarity. Despite this lack of definition, the implications of “state significance” can nevertheless be considerable. For example, in Queensland if the Coordinator-General declares a project to be a “significant project” under the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971, the environmental impact assessment process may become more streamlined – potentially circumventing certain provisions under The Integrated Planning Act 1997. If the project is not large enough to be so deemed, an extractive resource under the State Planning Policy 2/07 - Protection of Extractive Resources 2007 may be considered to be of State or regional significance and subsequently designated as a “Key Resource Area”. As a consequence, such a project is afforded some measure of resource protection but remains subject to the normal assessment process under the Integrated Development Assessment System, as well as the usual requirements of the vegetation management codes, and other regulations. This paper explores the various meanings of “state significance” in Queensland and the ramifications for development projects in that state. It argues for a streamlining of the assessment process in order to avoid or minimise constraints acting on the state’s development. In so doing, it questions the existence of a strategic threat to the delivery of an already over-stretched infrastructure program.

Access publication (QUT)
Download publication (Emerald)

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