Every Australian knows what it feels like to search for a home.

Whether it’s a young person trying to enter the market, a family looking for more space, a renter seeking security, a homeless person needing secure accommodation or an older Australian wanting to downsize, housing shapes some of the most important decisions we make.

Right now, too many people are finding that search harder than it should be.

Housing costs have risen sharply. Rental vacancies remain tight in many parts of the country. More Australians are worrying about whether they can find, afford or keep a place to live.

Australia desperately needs more homes, but we also need places people actually want to call home.

Yet somewhere in Australia’s housing debate, we’ve started acting as though these goals are in conflict.

We’re increasingly told that if we want more homes, we must accept less from the places around them – fewer trees, less sunlight, weaker neighbourhood character, less public space and fewer of the qualities that make communities attractive in the first place.

In other words, we’re being asked to choose between housing and liveability. That is a false choice.

This matters because governments are negotiating planning reforms linked to housing targets and billions of dollars in infrastructure funding.

Those discussions are important. Australia cannot solve the housing crisis without reform, but we also risk reducing a much more complex conversation to a simple proposition – that if we weaken planning controls, more homes will automatically follow.

The reality is not nearly that simple.

As a planner, I’ll readily admit that planning systems aren’t perfect and there are days where they frustrate me too.

The truth is some planning rules should go. Too many decisions that should........

© The New Daily