News location:

Monday, June 16, 2025 | Digital Edition | Crossword & Sudoku

Medium-density takes the pressure off greenfields

Low to moderate-income households who have little option but to live in apartments. Photo: Diego Fedele/AAP

In this second of three columns, MIKE QUIRK explores the proposed residential zoning reforms to encourage the development of ‘missing middle’ dwellings – duplexes, dual occupancies, townhouses and low-rise apartments.

Since the early 1990s Canberra’s planning strategy has placed an increased emphasis on urban consolidation.

Mike Quirk.

Up until 2018 when the consolidation share was increased to at least 70 per cent, the urban consolidation share of housing supply was around 50 per cent. 

Most redevelopment dwellings have been apartments. Current zoning is seen as limiting the provision of “missing middle” dwellings (terraces, dual occupancies, townhouses and low-rise apartments) viewed as necessary to provide opportunities for households wishing to downsize and obtain housing in areas close to work and urban amenities, improve affordability and the utilisation of infrastructure.

In response, on May 20, the government released for comment a draft Amendment to the Territory Plan and a design guide with the aims of increasing the supply of such housing.

The draft amendment changes what is allowed to be built in different residential zones. The changes in RZ1 areas include the removal of minimum block sizes for additional dwellings, removing the 120 square metre limit on secondary dwellings, allowing block subdivisions, permitting townhouses, terraces and low-rise apartments to be built up to two storeys, reduced parking requirements; and block consolidation with a general limit of 2000 square metres.

Block consolidation, by providing the scope for improved internal layouts and the better integration of parking and protection of vegetation, may lead to developments that are more attractive to consumers and neighbours. 

In other residential zones the main change proposed is the increase in the maximum height limits for multi-unit dwellings (In RZ2, three storeys+attic; in RZ3, four storeys; RZ4, six storeys and RZ 5, seven storeys). 

Uncertainty that the reforms will work

Surprisingly, low-density development is permitted with height limits of two storeys for a secondary residence and three storeys for a single dwelling, despite these zones having high accessibility to services and facilities.

It is uncertain if the reforms will substantially increase supply and affordability.

Would the reforms be more effective than alternative strategies such as identifying areas where demand for housing is high and where spare infrastructure capacity exists or expanding the extent of RZ2 and RZ3 areas? 

Could the proposed reforms result in a development pattern that is difficult to service?

While zoning has been a factor in the undersupply of housing, the recent failed dual occupancy RZ1 initiative highlights, policy needs to be grounded on high-quality analysis especially an understanding of development feasibility and of housing choice, which require an understanding of the complex interaction between: 

  • A household’s age, income, wealth, mobility, ethnicity, size and type.
  • Financial considerations – price; maintenance costs, rates and utilities costs; expectations of future capital gain and taxation policies.
  • The physical aspects of the dwelling and its site including its size and design, the amount of private open space; parking provision; security features; views, noise, light and the general ambience;
  • Proximity to employment, transport routes, recreation, leisure facilities and services and community services; 
  • Intangibles’ including pride, prestige and positioning. 

The increase in redevelopment share to 70 per cent was determined without an adequate knowledge of the factors determining housing choice. 

No housing choices survey

Unsurprisingly, the policy did not result in the desired provision of townhouses, dual occupancies and low-rise apartments.

Unfortunately, the current review of the residential zones was not informed by a housing choices survey. A survey would have identified what design features (number of bedrooms, storage space, sound proofing, width of doors and hallways, orientation, access to open space, cost and provision of lifts and parking etcetera) are needed to make dwellings attractive to households of various ages, incomes, types; and what trade-offs households would make to occupy a medium-density dwelling in areas of high accessibility.

Survey information would have complemented advice from industry groups and professionals and informed the draft design guide. 

Its absence could hinder the effectiveness of the guides in improving outcomes, particularly for low to moderate-income households who have little option but to live in apartments.

Until medium-density dwellings can be an effective substitute, there will be an ongoing need for greenfields development. 

Improved design, higher-quality construction and the use of design review panels providing independent expert advice to government on development applications could increase demand and aid community acceptability.

It is easy to overstate the infrastructure cost savings of consolidation (much depends on the capacity of infrastructure networks) and environmental benefits may be offset if redevelopment leads to the creation of heat islands, vegetation loss, congestion and increased parking blight from the reduction in parking requirements. 

Zoning is one factor in the supply of housing. Other major determinants include underlying demand, cost of finance, labour and materials; design and construction quality; price, land values and the lower appreciation in values of higher-density dwellings when compared to detached houses.

It is easy to overestimate the potential benefits of the reforms. They are not a panacea. They will assist in increasing housing supply in established areas and possibly make a modest contribution to improving affordability. 

Mike Quirk is a former NCDC and ACT government planner.

 

 

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

Share this

2 Responses to Medium-density takes the pressure off greenfields

Jim Thornton says: 6 June 2025 at 11:52 am

The government have predicted 30,000 new dwellings by 2030 (54 months).
How many certificates of occupancy are currently granted per month, and how many are for knock down and rebuild?
I doubt the multiplication will meet the 30,000. So what is the plan and modelling that supports the target number?
Also, what is the vision of mix between granny flats to high rise options?

Reply
Ian Hubbard says: 7 June 2025 at 3:34 pm

How many of the 40,000 blocks in the RZ1 zones proposed as suitable for additional development already have multiple dwellings on them? This policy seems to based on thought bubbles rather than research and facts. Relying on the market to produce housing that is suitable or affordable for your average Canberra household or those with a lower income is a fantasy evidenced by the fact that this product can’t be found in the Canberra market.

Reply

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

Opinion

Oh, Janet, I do so want to take you seriously, but…

"People are not born into equal opportunity, but we can go some way to putting that right by letting some disadvantaged have a chance." HUGH SELBY says a prominent legal commentator is adrift in her criticism of how offenders are sentenced.

Follow us on Instagram @canberracitynews