“It’s time the government developed an evidence-based strategy as it can no longer afford to base planning decisions on platitudinous twaddle, writes planning columnist MIKE QUIRK.

The widespread dissatisfaction with Canberra’s urban development is a product of shallow planning and transport strategies.

Its land use-transport planning, like other Australian cities, is based on the compact model of increasing housing in areas close to employment, facilities and services.

This is in order to reduce travel, car use and infrastructure expenditure and widen housing choice with higher-density housing developed in locations of high metropolitan accessibility and along major transport corridors served by high-frequency public transport. 

It is difficult to disagree with the 2018 Planning Strategy’s vision “of a sustainable, competitive and equitable city that respects Canberra as a city in the landscape and national capital while being responsive to the future and resilience to change” or its city themes of compact and efficient, diverse, sustainable and resilient, liveable and accessible.

The problem is the strategy is little more than a series of platitudes with the government failing to translate the model and broad vision into policies underpinned by detailed analysis to effectively guide the development of the city.

A key direction, to develop at least 70 per cent of new housing in the existing urban footprint to achieve the compact city objectives, was determined without assessments of whether the claimed benefits could be delivered. 

What is the extent of infrastructure cost savings in areas undergoing redevelopment? Substantial additional population could require significant additional infrastructure. How much, for example, infrastructure augmentation occurred in north Canberra to accommodate the increase in its population from 38,600 in 2001 to more than 62,000 in 2022 and how much will be needed to accommodate the projected 100,000 by 2042?

Has travel and car use been reduced by consolidation policies? Have any benefits been offset by increased travel from car-dependent developments in the region? What has been the reduction in revenue (land sales, rates and lower Commonwealth grants) from the diversion of detached housing demand to the region? Has the reduction in the supply of new detached dwellings contributed to increased house prices by limiting the housing choice available?

Unsurprisingly, given their poor analytical base, the government’s redevelopment policies have undergone frequent revision.

The policies often have produced poor-quality developments with loss of vegetation, poor privacy and solar access, parking blight, congestion, increased runoff and few affordable townhouse and dual-occupancy dwellings.

The government’s ill-conceived approach is reflected in the policy of permitting the potential unit titling of 45,000 dwellings in RZ1 areas for dual occupancy, provided the second dwelling was under 120sqm. From November 2023 to November 2024 only 33 applications were received.

The policies are again being reviewed with Minister Chris Steel foreshadowing changes to promote the development of “missing middle” housing. The review is to be guided by a report (not being made public – why not?) on planning and economic feasibility analysis, by Purdon Planning, a firm specialising in submitting DAs for developers.

The review is unlikely to produce quality outcomes as it is not guided by a comprehensive analysis of housing preferences, dwelling design, the scope for block amalgamation, the infrastructure augmentation required and how it is to be funded.

Any suggestion that change-of-use charges should be reduced to encourage the “missing middle” should be carefully analysed as it could simply increase returns to existing property owners and leave an infrastructure funding black hole.

Its transport policies have failed to reduce car use. How appropriate has the focus on light rail been? Would other strategies, including increasing parking charges, reducing parking supply, improving bike and cycle paths, extending the frequency and coverage of bus network, increasing electric buses, dispersing employment and bus rapid transit (along the lines of the Brisbane metro which could provide a similar level of service at lower cost), have been more effective?

With substantial unmet needs in health and social housing and high debt, why did it commit to stage 2a ($577 million for 1.7 kilometres) especially given the uncertainty over stage 2b?

Has it considered the risk of autonomous cars to greatly reduce demand for public transport and considered how to address the mobility needs of the disadvantaged? 

An urgent policy review is necessary. Essential background reading should include The Next Australian City edited by Guy Gibson and Ross Elliot. It recently won the overall award for Planning Excellence at the Queensland Planning Institute of Australia conference. The judges noted the publication’s strength in “igniting crucial conversations and encouraging robust debate on the role of suburbs within the national urban landscape”. 

It contains diverse, sometimes contradictory views about the past and possible future role of suburbs, drawing on international and Australian experience. Each Australian capital city has a separate chapter. The Canberra chapter highlights how Canberra reflects the evolution of planning approaches including neighbourhood and land use-transport planning.

It explores what can be done to make cities work better. Contributions also include discussions on new cities; housing location, demand and supply; the impacts of climate change, changing demography, autonomous vehicles, telecommunications and increased working from home. 

It’s time the government developed an evidence-based strategy as it can no longer afford to base planning decisions on platitudinous twaddle. 

Mike Quirk is a former NCDC and ACT government planner.