Abstract
Inclusionary housing is a globally recognised tool for combatting issues of unaffordable housing and residential segregation. Despite the proliferation of inclusionary housing overseas, there has been limited uptake within Aotearoa. The Queenstown Lakes District Council (QLDC) is the only territorial authority to have implemented a long-term inclusionary housing program. The Queenstown Lakes model uses developer contributions obtained when land is rezoned through a private plan change. The independent Queenstown Lakes Community Housing Trust (QLCHT) uses contributions of dwellings, land, and cash to provide affordable housing to residents. The program aims to incorporate affordable housing units into wider market developments.
In response to the current housing crisis, many councils are searching for innovative tools to increase the supply of affordable housing. The Queenstown Lakes experience provides a unique opportunity to assess the viability of inclusionary housing in Aotearoa. This research aims to determine whether the model has been successful in increasing access to affordable housing and fostering diverse and functioning communities. Furthermore, the research looks to evaluate the framework and process used in Queenstown in relation to other inclusionary housing models. Finally, the investigation explores key challenges in Queenstown Lakes and the current barriers to the widespread applicability of inclusionary housing in Aotearoa. A mixed methods approach was utilised, sourcing data from a questionnaire survey, key informant interviews, document analysis, and site observations.
The findings indicate that the inclusionary housing model in Queenstown Lakes has been an effective mechanism at increasing affordable housing access for median to moderate income working households. The high quality of affordable housing design and integration within the community facilitated by the QLCHT appears to have retained community functionality. The program has also showed indications of increasing community diversity in some respects. The research highlights that inclusionary housing does not increase the frequency of negative neighbourhood behaviours.
Despite this success, the ability of the inclusionary housing model to adequately meet affordable housing need in the district in severely limited. The framework that relies on linkage zoning and voluntary agreements through private plan changes is unable to produce the scale of affordable housing required in its current form. The framework does have benefits in its ability to provide flexibility and a strong link to land value uplift that reduces the likelihood of increased prices in the private housing market. Given the established infrastructure for inclusionary housing already established and the likelihood of significant land value uplift in the short term, a more mandatory system may be more appropriate for Queenstown Lakes going forward. The experience in Queenstown Lakes does highlight the political and legal challenges for inclusionary housing that have been shown to be a perceived barrier for territorial authorities in Aotearoa. A clearer legal pathway for inclusionary housing pathway would likely increases the uptake and success within New Zealand. The research highlights that there are significant opportunities for inclusionary housing to be a key tool for territorial authorities to address a range of housing challenges. If an inclusionary housing program is designed in a manner that is tailored to the local context and responds to clear local housing aims, it is likely to be a highly effective housing tool.