Australians do not need to be convinced that we need to build more homes. They see adult children struggling to leave home, older Australian unable to downsize locally, and essential workers priced out of the communities they serve.

The challenge is whether we can deliver more housing in a way that earns and keeps public confidence.

This is even more important because many of the new homes Australia needs will have to be in established suburbs, close to jobs, transport, schools and services. This means change in neighbourhoods people already know and deeply care about.

New research from housing advocate Amplify, The Density Bargain, provides an important reminder that Australians are more prepared for that change than the political debate often suggests. This research found overwhelming support (around 94 per cent) for medium-density housing in well-connected locations and broad agreement that established suburbs need to accommodate more homes to improve affordability.

But that support is conditional.

Australians are prepared to accept more homes and more change, but they expect growth to be delivered in a way that improves neighbourhoods, keeps infrastructure and services in step, and responds to the qualities of each place. This is the trust test for housing reform.

Too often, public debates reduce these issues to labels. People are either described as YIMBYs or NIMBYs, as though every view about housing, neighbourhood change or density fits into one of two camps.

That may make for simple politics, but it rarely makes for good planning decisions.

Labels are used to marginalise legitimate concerns and flatten nuanced community views into a binary debate where people are assumed to be either for housing or against it. But we know that most Australians support more homes and also expect better infrastructure and development that contributes positively to the place around it.

Good planning does not begin by dismissing those views. It begins by understanding them.

That does not mean every concern can or should prevent change. Australia cannot solve its housing crisis by allowing every local objection to become a veto. But nor will reform endure if communities feel change is being imposed on them without a clear plan, without evidence, and without the infrastructure and services needed to make growth work.

The Amplify research reflects a practical public mood. Australians are not simply saying “no” to density. The majority are saying “yes, but only if it’s done well”.

The Productivity Commission’s interim report on housing supply regulation, released late last month, arrives at an important moment. Its recognition of the central role of strategic planning is welcome.

Housing cannot be planned in isolation from infrastructure, transport, employment, schools, utilities and services. The major choices about growth need to be made upfront through well-funded strategic planning that maps clear housing and infrastructure needs, tests where growth can best be accommodated, involves communities, and translates decisions quickly into planning controls, infrastructure programs and funding commitments.

Done well, strategic planning gives everyone more certainty. Governments can be held accountable for the infrastructure needed to support growth. Developers can invest with greater confidence. And development that delivers the agreed plan can be approved more quickly and consistently.

Not all of our suburbs need three levels of housing. Photo: Pexels

If density done well is the outcome Australians are asking for, strategic planning is how we get there.

That is why one proposal in the Productivity Commission’s interim report deserves close scrutiny: A broad reform proposal that would allow housing development up to three storeys across most residential land.

The intent is understandable. Australia needs more medium-density housing, including townhouses, terraces, manor houses and low-rise apartments. But a blanket three-storey upzone rule is a simplified answer to a complex problem, and simple is not the same as strategic.

Australian’s cities and towns are not uniform and neither are the opportunities they present. Different communities have different levels of infrastructure capacity, access to transport, exposure to natural hazards, market feasibility and opportunities for growth.

In some neighbourhoods, three storeys will be entirely appropriate. In others, it may be too much. In the best connected and highest demand locations, it may not go far enough. If modest redevelopment occurs in places that should ultimately support more substantial housing, it can make future change harder and more expensive.

A neighbourhood close to a major centre with frequent public transport and strong access to jobs and services, should not by default evolve in the same way as a coastal settlement, a bushfire-prone area, or an outer suburban location without the infrastructure to support significant growth.

That is not an argument against density. It is an argument for putting density in the right places, in the right forms, supported by the right infrastructure.

Evidence-based strategic planning, led by professional planners, gives governments the information they need to make those choices. It also gives communities something they are entitled to expect: A clear explanation of the future being planned for them.

Australia will need to keep building more homes for decades. Every successful reform will make the next stage easier. Every poor outcome makes the next community conversation harder.

That is why governments need to honour their side of the bargain.
If communities are being asked to accept more housing and more change, they deserve to understand the plan. Three storeys everywhere is not a substitute for that work.

Australians are ready for density done well. The task now is to plan it properly.

Emma Riley is national president of the Planning Institute of Australia, the national peak association for Australia’s town planning profession