The Urban Planner Shortage and What It Actually Means for Housing Delivery

Are we talking enough about who will actually deliver the housing we are planning for?

There is a growing conversation in Australia about housing supply, but one part of that conversation is still not getting enough attention. We simply do not have enough planners to do the work needed to unlock housing at the pace being demanded. Jobs and Skills Australia is projecting a need for around 16,200 urban and regional planners by 2026, which is close to a 19 percent increase compared to 2021. At the same time, nearly two thirds of organisations say they are struggling to recruit planners.

This is not just a workforce statistic. It is already showing up in how quickly projects move, how long assessments take, and how confident councils and developers feel in pushing forward with complex projects.

From a planning perspective, the shortage is less about numbers on paper and more about lost momentum across the entire development pipeline.

What is driving the shortage

One part of the issue is education pathways. Over the past several years, planning courses have quietly disappeared from some universities. Fewer graduates entering the workforce means the industry is now competing for a smaller pool of qualified professionals.

Another factor is how broad the planner role has become. Modern planners are not just assessing development applications. They are dealing with housing strategy, infrastructure coordination, climate resilience, heritage, community engagement, and increasingly complex policy environments. The skill set expected from planners is wider than it was even ten years ago.

There is also a retention challenge. Planning can be high pressure work. Planners often sit between community expectations, political pressures, and development feasibility realities. It requires technical knowledge but also negotiation skills and emotional resilience. Without strong mentoring and support structures, it is not surprising some professionals move into adjacent industries.

Where this shows up in real projects

In practice, the shortage often appears first as time delays. Councils with understaffed planning teams can struggle to meet assessment timeframes. This does not just affect developers. It affects home buyers waiting on subdivision approvals, infrastructure upgrades, or rezoning outcomes.

Strategic planning work can also slow down. When teams are stretched, urgent assessment work usually takes priority over long term structure planning or housing strategy work. The result is reactive planning instead of proactive planning, which ultimately makes housing delivery less efficient.

Another issue is consistency of decision making. When teams rely heavily on contract planners or experience frequent staff turnover, institutional knowledge is harder to maintain. That can lead to more conservative decision making, more requests for information, or longer negotiation processes.

From experience, some of the most complex planning matters rely on understanding site history, previous approvals, and local policy interpretation patterns. That knowledge is built over time. When teams are constantly changing, that depth is harder to maintain.

Why this matters for housing supply

Housing supply challenges are often framed around zoning capacity or construction costs, but planning workforce capacity is just as critical. As the quote often attributed to Winston Churchill says, “He who fails to plan is planning to fail.” In today’s housing context, this is very real. Without enough planners to shape, coordinate, and assess growth, even well intentioned housing targets can fall short before projects reach construction.

Every housing project moves through multiple planning stages, from strategic planning to development assessment to infrastructure coordination. When planning teams are stretched, delays increase, project risk rises, and housing delivery slows. There is also a quality impact. Good planning is not just about speed. It is about balancing housing supply with liveability, infrastructure capacity, environmental constraints, and long term community outcomes. Without sufficient planning capacity, the risk is not only fewer homes, but weaker planning outcomes that can shape cities and communities for decades.

What this means for the profession

There is a real opportunity here to reposition planning as a career that directly shapes how cities function. Many people still do not fully understand what planners do or how much influence planning has on everyday life.

There is also a need to invest more in early career planners. Structured mentoring, realistic workloads, and clear career pathways will be critical if the industry wants to retain talent.

From a professional perspective, there is also a shift happening in expectations. Planners are now expected to understand data analytics, sustainability frameworks, infrastructure funding models, and community engagement strategy. The profession is becoming more multidisciplinary, which is positive, but it also raises the bar for training and support.

Where we think the conversation needs to go next

One of the risks in the current housing debate is oversimplifying the solution to just building more homes faster. Speed matters, but planning quality matters just as much.

If governments want to accelerate housing delivery, investment in planning capacity needs to sit alongside policy reform and infrastructure funding. Scholarships, education support, and industry promotion all play a role, but so does improving how planning teams are resourced and supported day to day.

There is also a role for the private sector. Strong collaboration between consultants, councils, and state agencies can help distribute workload and knowledge more effectively.

Planning has always been about balancing competing priorities. The current workforce shortage is another example of how interconnected the system really is.

Why This Matters Beyond the Profession

The real takeaway here is that the planner shortage is not just an industry problem. It is a city shaping constraint. It influences how quickly housing can move from policy to approval to construction. It affects how well infrastructure is planned alongside growth. It ultimately shapes how confidently communities can expand without losing the qualities that make them liveable.

What this moment is really exposing is that planning has never just been about systems, legislation, or assessment pathways. Planning is built on people. It relies on professional judgement, local knowledge, and the ability to balance competing priorities in ways policy alone cannot solve. Without enough experienced planners in the system, even well written policy and ambitious housing targets risk staying theoretical.

As the housing conversation continues to evolve, workforce capacity needs to sit alongside targets, zoning reform, and infrastructure investment. Otherwise, there is a real risk that we continue setting expectations for housing delivery that the system, as it currently stands, is not resourced to meet.

If we want faster housing delivery, better infrastructure coordination, and stronger long term city outcomes, then investing in the planning workforce is not optional. It is foundational.