“The government, as in the case of light rail, has not undertaken the needed analysis and is paternalistically saying to the community we know what’s best for you,” writes planning columnist MIKE QUIRK.

From the late 1950s to the early 2000s the location of housing in Canberra was guided by well-informed policies of the National Capital Development Commission.

Since then “compact city” policies have been adopted to respond to major societal changes. Unfortunately, over the last decade there has been limited assessment of their ongoing efficacy.

The NCDC chose, after detailed assessment of alternative strategies, to accommodate Canberra’s growth by the development of a series of new towns. 

In the 1960s and 1970s some 90 per cent of housing demand was for detached dwellings. Demand was primarily accommodated through greenfield development where shops, schools, recreation facilities, roads and public transport were provided soon after initial settlement.

Substantial office development was successfully dispersed to the new towns, reducing overall travel. The limited demand for higher-density housing was primarily directed to sites adjacent to centres. 

Infrastructure and services requirements were determined by annual assessments of population trends and community needs. A key issue identified was the population decline in inner Canberra and the associated underuse of infrastructure. In response, the Commission undertook several initiatives including the establishment of the Kingston-Griffith redevelopment area, proposed major infill (which did not proceed as a result of community opposition) and redevelopment of government housing stock in Narrabundah and the Causeway. To promote medium-density housing, it developed estates at Swinger Hill and Emu Ridge. 

By the mid-1980s higher-density housing represented 25 to 30 per cent of demand. To widen housing choice, dual occupancy was introduced. However, unit titling and subdivision were not permitted as they were viewed as threats to the character of residential areas, as hindering the provision of rental accommodation, impeding future, more intensive consolidation and could result in blocks difficult to service. 

The Compact City: With self government in 1989, the NCDC was abolished and a territory planning agency created. Building on the legacy of past planning and in response to ongoing population decline, increased demand for higher-density housing, environmental concerns and a reduced ability to influence employment location, the planning strategy was recalibrated to develop a more sustainable city.

The redevelopment share of land release was increased to 50 per cent to reduce travel, better use infrastructure and reduce the environmental impacts of development. 

Higher-density housing zones were identified primarily in and adjacent major centres and along major transport routes. After being initially permitted, the subdivision and unit titling of dual occupancy were excluded in response to concerns over development quality and that benefits from its development would not accrue to the whole community.

A loophole, which allowed dual occupancy to be subdivided without being subject to change of use charge on pre-1970 “residential purpose only” leases was closed. 

The 2008 Territory Plan identified zones (RZ1 to RZ5) of increasing density. Most residentially zoned land was designated RZ1 (Suburban) where dual-occupancy housing would be permitted, but without separate unit titling. 

In RZ2 (Suburban Core) Zones, close to local, group and town centres, subdivision and separate unit titling of dual occupancies were permitted.

There were community concerns that too many redevelopments were poorly designed (eg were not meeting the requirements of many households, had poor privacy, solar access and inadequate parking; resulted in vegetative loss and increased congestion; and poorly constructed). 

The 2018 Planning Strategy ushered in a period where policy is increasingly based on opinion. 

Without analysis, particularly of housing preferences, the strategy increased the redevelopment share of land release to 70 per cent. Recently the multi-unit share of releases was increased to 90 per cent and “missing-middle” reforms introduced.

They included the unit titling and subdivision of dual occupancies in the RZ1 suburban zones, a guide to improve dwelling design and reductions in appeal rights, parking requirements and lease variation charges.

The government argued the changes would increase the housing available to first-home buyers, renters, those on lower incomes and downsizers; reduce approval times and contribute to the achievement of compact city aims. 

There is no certainty they will greatly increase housing choice and supply given the high cost of developing dual occupancies and townhouses.

There is no guarantee cost savings will be passed on to purchasers.

If successful, the policies could result in haphazard development, inadequate parking, substantially increase stormwater runoff and increased canopy loss (despite policy objectives to the contrary).

The aims could possibly be better addressed by the construction of social housing and apartment design based on a housing choices survey.

Ongoing restrictions on new detached housing releases will continue to reduce affordability and increase sprawl in surrounding NSW. 

No assessment has been made about the implications of increased redevelopment on the need to augment infrastructure and the extent of the environmental and travel benefits accruing. 

The government, as in the case of light rail, has not undertaken the needed analysis and is paternalistically saying to the community we know what’s best for you. When will the Assembly insist the government undertake the missing analysis?

Mike Quirk is a former NCDC and ACT government planner. 

. 

News all day, every day at CityNews.com.au.