News location:

Saturday, November 23, 2024 | Digital Edition | Crossword & Sudoku

ACT politicians believe their own vacuous spin

Suburban cramming … the new normal for approvals under the chief minister’s proposed reforms. Photo: Google Earth

“We now have an ACT government that does its best to look busy but no longer functions for the benefit of those who cherish the city,” bemoans “Canberra Matters” columnist PAUL COSTIGAN. “How the hell did we get to this?”

READING through submissions for one of the many inquiries conducted by this ACT government, there was one submitted by Rebecca Vassarotti as Heritage Minister. This was a little weird, given that the heritage minister was submitting to an ACT government inquiry on heritage – but that’s another story.

Paul Costigan.

The reality is that it was likely written by her bureaucracy. But she signed off on it, so it represents her views and the values of the ACT Greens. The submission spoke volumes about the flawed and deteriorated state of the ACT government. 

Try this bit of rubbish: “The ACT government is currently progressing the ACT Planning System Review and Reform Project, to deliver a modern planning system focused on delivering outcomes for the people of Canberra.” 

She still refuses to see what is in front of her. Despite that community groups have continually highlighted the serious failures of the administration of planning in Canberra, the ACT Greens determinedly refuse to acknowledge the truth of what the chief minister’s agenda is about. That being the downgrading of the city’s planning and the destruction of the character of this city in the landscape.

Then she says: “The new Planning Bill includes key improvements relating to heritage – such as the recognition of First Nations culture, knowledge and tradition, and the inclusion of cultural heritage conservation principles in the definition of good planning.” 

Residents have had to work hard to find any mention of heritage and when there is a mention, it is minimal. Heritage has been given little priority by Andrew Barr and given what is being proposed, consideration of heritage issues will be even more optional – if that.

And more: “The ACT Planning Strategy also sets out that urban redevelopment must consider and respond to issues such as the neighbourhood character of heritage areas.”

This is absolute rubbish, given that under the proposed deregulated processes, urban development decisions will be subjective and based on the bureaucracy’s inclinations. Neighbourhood character is a criterion that this government has not taken seriously and there are no signs of change for the better.

The image at the top is of a build in an established suburb. The nearby homes, their trees, gardens and open spaces reflect the neighbourhood character. The build represents what the planning bureaucracy approves now despite all the ACT Greens’ years of rhetoric about trees, greening, climate and urban green infrastructure. 

The picture says it all. This form of suburban cramming is appearing in established suburbs across Canberra. This will be the new normal for approvals under the chief minister’s proposed reforms. It is most likely these deregulation reforms will sail through the assembly given that none of them takes urban character seriously. They have much more important things to do such as publishing their selfies taken at community events.

The ACT Greens have formed a coalition with ACT Labor for more than a decade. The expectation would have been that the ACT Greens would have demanded a priority on biodiversity, urban climate issues, greenery, sustainability and energy efficient housing. 

At the 2022 ACT election they stated they were Building a Better Normal. Presumably that meant that housing and urban developments were to get better. If so, they have failed miserably! The ACT Greens have achieved very little that delivers 21st century housing and urban developments. 

The planning bureaucracy should be questioned about how they approve residences with so much missing – backyards, space for greenery and anything matching the neighbourhood character. It must also be recognised that the bureaucracy does this with the blessing of Greenslabor politicians – and most likely with the quiet approval of the Canberra Liberals because they, too, choose not to upset developers.

We now have an ACT government that does its best to look busy but no longer functions for the benefit of those who cherish the city. If the proposed deregulations are approved, those purchasing homes now and into the future will be dealing with massive heat-island suburbs. 

The ACT Greens refuse to acknowledge what the residents of this city are saying and what is atrocious about what is being proposed. Instead they blurt out vacuous spin such as “a modern planning system focused on delivering outcomes for the people of Canberra”. What rubbish!

Based on the statements they make, including that gem from Vassarotti, the best we get from the ACT Greens is their continuous vacuous spin about how wonderful they are. How the hell did we get to this?

Who can be trusted?

In a world of spin and confusion, there’s never been a more important time to support independent journalism in Canberra.

If you trust our work online and want to enforce the power of independent voices, I invite you to make a small contribution.

Every dollar of support is invested back into our journalism to help keep citynews.com.au strong and free.

Become a supporter

Thank you,

Ian Meikle, editor

Paul Costigan

Paul Costigan

Share this

2 Responses to ACT politicians believe their own vacuous spin

Caroline Wenger says: 6 May 2023 at 6:29 pm

Hi Paul,
You are SPOT ON. The new planning provisions will have a worse outcome for neighbourhoods than the relaxed rules that were allowed under Mr Fluffy provisions.

Case study summary
For the block next to us, under existing Mr Fluffy provisions, 2 houses, each 196m2 could be built. Under the new provisions, 2 houses, each 547m2, could be built, which will not solve housing affordability problems.

Canberra houses already the largest in the world
Following a CT article which stated that average new Canberra house sizes were the biggest in the world I got curious and did a little extra research. I looked at average household size in the top ten cities and found, surprise, surprise, that not only are our houses the largest but the household size is the smallest. This is ludicrous in a small territory which has limited land supply and housing affordability issues. Large houses are also least sustainable in terms of materials used, energy use and land per person lost to wildlife (including those compatible with suburbia). How is this ‘Green’? How can a ‘Green’ Party even think about supporting this without losing credibility?

Here’s my research:

CommSec report on Australian house size trends (Nov 2020) found at:
https://www.commbank.com.au/articles/newsroom/2020/11/commsec-home-size-trends-report.html

“Australia is again building the biggest houses in the world, ahead of the United States, according to the latest CommSec Home Size Report. ……. The ACT continues to build the biggest houses in Australia. In 2019/20 the average floor area of a house built in the ACT was 256.3m²; ahead of Victoria (250.3m²); NSW (235m²); and Western Australia (232.5m²).”

My case study indicates that even in ‘low density’ areas, the new ACT planning provisions will allow even larger houses to be built.

Buildworld UK study of average new house size in 72 cities around the world (Jan 2023):
https://www.buildworld.co.uk/blog/archives/average-home-size-in-capital-cities

The average new house size in the table below are the ‘top 10’ in the Buildworld UK study.
I found average household size figures for each city using official statistics available on the internet.

Top Ten House average new house sizes in the world:

CITY AVERAGE NEW HOUSE SIZE (m2) HOUSEHOLD SIZE m2 PER CAPITA
Canberra 256.3 2.39 107.24
Cairo, Egypt 188.0 4.47 42.06
Tripoli, Libya 180.0 3.9 46.15
Amman, Jordan 170.0 5.04 (projected) 33.73
Ottowa, Canada 163.8 2.5 61.35
Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic 160.1 2.67 (projected) 59.96
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 158.4 3.5 45.26
Jakarta, Indonesia 157.0 5.06 31.03
Manilla, Philippines 155.0 3.8 40.79
Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates 153.4 4.9* 31.31
Wellington, NZ 123.0 2.6 47.31
* This is the national average. The most recent figure for Abu Dhabi appears to have been 5.1 in 2005

Under the new ACT Planning Provisions:

CITY NEW HOUSE SIZE (m2) HOUSEHOLD SIZE m2 PER CAPITA
Canberra Case Study 547.65 2.39 229.15
‘Large’ block in a low density
RZ1 zone, size of each 2 storey house
if subdivided.
(not including unroofed exclusions, attic rooms, basements)

Canberra’s houses are already the largest in the world. Why do we need to further relax legislation that will allow houses to be even larger?

WAKE UP CANBERRA!

Reply
John Santolin says: 9 May 2023 at 12:09 am

Dear Editor, could you ask Mr Costigan to look up alternatives for the word rubbish which he’s used three times in this short cranky article? Mullock or draff might be appropriate here.
Regards John

Reply

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

Follow us on Instagram @canberracitynews