11 September 2023

Territory Plan for 'gentle urban growth' criticised for not going further

| Claire Fenwicke
Join the conversation
44
Andrew Barr and Mick Gentleman

Planning Minister Mick Gentleman with Chief Minister Andrew Barr announcing the new Territory Plan. Photo: Claire Fenwicke.

There’s been mixed reaction to the Territory’s announcement to open up dual occupancy options in some zoned areas of Canberra, with some saying it strikes the right balance and others labelling it “unambitious”.

The Territory Plan 2023, district strategies and design guides were released on Monday (11 September), which Planning Minister Mick Gentleman said would allow people to consider different ways to live in the future and allow for “gentle density growth” across the Territory.

“Our old Territory plan had a limit, it was rules-based planning, it didn’t encourage people to think innovatively,” he said.

“The new Territory Plan does.”

It is hoped these changes will boost both housing and renting stock in the ACT, providing options in already established areas at a better price point.

dual-occupancy dwelling

More Canberrans have been given the chance to establish second dwellings (like this one in Torrens) on housing blocks. Photo: Claire Fenwicke.

It’s expected missing middle houses such as townhouses, dual occupancies and duplexes will allow the government to provide more affordable and diverse homes for people to rent and own in established locations.

Molonglo Valley is likely to accommodate most of the Territory’s future growth, while the Inner North, City and Belconnen are expected to experience most of the new medium and higher-density development.

Chief Minister Andrew Barr said while the Labor Conference had adopted the policy of upzoning, concessions also had to be made to ensure the plan had a majority vote when the legislation was presented to the Assembly.

“We have to operate in the art of the possible, and I’d rather an outcome and get 80 per cent of what the party wants by way of increased [housing] supply,” he said.

“This won’t be the final say in planning for the rest of time … but what we’re announcing now is something I think will have a duration of several decades.”

READ ALSO Apartments on the way for dual-occupancy sites but restrictions apply under new Territory Plan

Political compromises appear to have mainly been with the ACT Greens.

“The Liberals have effectively stayed out of this and offered no serious engagement on the issue,” Mr Barr said.

The Greens are particularly happy with the inclusion of a Biodiversity Design Guide, which developers will have to consider when submitting applications for the first time.

“Ending new gas connections, requiring charging points for electric vehicles, saving and planting more trees on every development site – all of these Greens policies are set down in the new Territory Plan to make Canberra an even better place to live as our city grows,” Sustainable Building and Construction Minister Rebecca Vassarotti said.

Other policy changes include living infrastructure and urban heat provisions for commercial and community-facility zoned land, as well as subdivision applications, and amended vehicle parking requirements for EV charging facilities.

The Greens will be watching closely to make sure the ambition becomes reality.

“[The plan] has very significant ambition in terms of quality, in terms of ensuring that developments are ‘human scale’ and responding to the environment,” Ms Vassarotti said.

“Enforcement and compliance is a really significant issue for us, and ensuring the system actually is delivering so we can look at potential additional things.

“We don’t think this is the end of the conversation.”

READ ALSO Financial disclosure returns for Canberra’s politicians and parties released

Compromises will always come with disappointments for some.

The Housing Industry Association (HIA) has been calling for subdivision in RZ1 in some circumstances for a number of years, so while it has welcomed the announcement, it’s disappointed secondary dwellings will be restricted in size.

“This seems at odds with the overall design of the new planning system, which is promoted as being outcome-focused rather than prescriptive,” ACT/Southern NSW executive director Greg Weller said.

“It would also have been preferable for the block size to be set at 700 square metres, as it was for the former Mr Fluffy blocks.”

Size also matters to the Canberra Liberals.

Planning and Land Management shadow minister Peter Cain has slammed the RZ1 announcement in particular as an “unambitious copy” of the Liberals’ plan that they took to the last election.

“Our plan is more ambitious, it allows a greater variety of housing by not limiting the size – would a family be able to live effectively in a 120 square metre granny flat?” he asked.

He also expressed concerns about how these changes would impact current wait times for DAs to be approved, how the logistics of hooking up utility connections would be managed, and if there would actually be any significant uptake.

“It’s fine to say ‘here’s a policy, here is a new scheme’ but if it actually doesn’t get taken up, then that’s not a successful policy,” Mr Cain said.

The Canberra Liberals will deliver their planning policy closer to the election.

Join the conversation

44
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

The test will be how the plan caters for a young couple with no or young kids, being first home buyers needing affordable accommodation (mortgage payments less than 30% of income) and wanting a traditional 3 bedroom house with a backyard for family activities. Once, these houses were being built in the outer suburbs, but now newer suburbs are dominated by much larger homes, with high end inclusions, on smaller but exorbitantly priced blocks, with less space for shady trees. Rising housing quality and size aspirations, building costs and land supply restrictions have combined to exclude young first home buyers. Inner city blocks will always be priced out of reach, outer city blocks for first home buyer families are needed.

““Our plan is more ambitious, it allows a greater variety of housing by not limiting the size – would a family be able to live effectively in a 120 square metre granny flat?” he asked.”
Hardly a “granny flat”. That comment reeks of spoilt entitlement. Families live in smaller houses than that in many countries. Examples:

House Size (square meters)
Spain 97 sq. meters
Sweden 83 sq. meters
United Kingdom 76 sq. meters

The average sized family home was 100 sq metres in 1950. Houses in Australia have grown and grown to ridiculous sizes, covering most of the blocks of land. My first home (three bedrooms) was less than 90 sq metres, and three of us lived comfortably in it. I bought it from a family of five. I will agree though, that it was better, size wise for three, than five. The average household size in 2902 was 2.5 people. One in four households is one person. 120 sq metres is not too small. People can size up later if they wish, but 120 metres provides a nice entry house. There are not enough smaller houses being built. It seems only massive McMansions.
https://aifs.gov.au/research/facts-and-figures/population-households-and-families#:~:text=While%20the%20number%20of%20households,%2C%20at%202.5%2C%20in%202021.

There is nothing gentle about infill the government is pushing. In Melbourne and Sydney and cities overseas where this type of infill has already happened people are experiencing increased noise and light pollution, reduced privacy and access to sunlight, urban heat island effects that are stopping people sleeping at night in summer as building and hard surfaces replace yards with lawns, gardens and trees.

There is nothing gentle about infill the government is pushing. In Melbourne and Sydney and cities overseas where this type of infill has already happened people are experiencing increased noise and light pollution, reduced privacy and access to sunlight, urban heat island effects that are stopping people sleeping at night in summer as building and hard surfaces replace yards with lawns, gardens and trees. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-11/townhouses-development-heat-island-effect-australian-suburbs/100588334?fbclid=IwAR1Dr2bF-tfqMAnEIaAviqDrjmFnXELjM99lSHX9G88mSM2tCfHyiK3oMhA

Incidental Tourist11:56 pm 12 Sep 23

Does the donga on photos illustrate grand opening of a largest caravan park? And why would anybody ever need room for family if they have to install electric car charger?

It’s all fait accomplit now. No use grumbling. I’ve had a bit of a look at the documentation, there’s a lot of it. At a practical level, it’s going to take a lot of study to figure out whether any particular development, even a garden shed let alone a new apartment block, is feasible under the new rules. Let’s hope there’s going to be an efficient system of question-answer in some format or other.

A nice suburb has wide streets, large blocks with space for trees and gardens, good separation between houses, room for hobbies, recreation and kids play, little traffic and quiet. When all this sectioning of blocks gets going it is predictable that the pleasant character of our older suburbs will change for the worse. I suppose they call this “progress”.

A nice suburb is also active with a vibrant mix of demographic. Most of our current suburbs are isolated and exclusionary.

Cool. USA talking points. Can you explain how Canberra’s current suburbs are isolated and exclusionary?

Petronius, wrote, “A nice suburb has wide streets, large blocks with space for trees and gardens, good separation between houses, room for hobbies, recreation and kids play, little traffic and quiet. ”
To continue to supply this, the city spreads and spreads, until it gets to Yass and Cooma. Because it has spread so far, it’s too expensive to run public transport and most people drive and the roads are clogged and traffic comes to a standstill. Many people spend hours a day commuting to work. Rates have gone up even further, because of the increased infrastructure needed for sewage, roads, etc. Farmland and bushland has been bulldozed to cater for this.
Not the horror city I want to live in.

BTW. I support higher density, but I’m not convinced this is the best model for Canberra.

If the ACT government wants European style cities as government MLA’s keep telling us in the media, they have to implement European style planning rules that allow building across almost all of the block and building front doors very close to the street. (Please note I’m not advocating that approach, just saying you can’t cherry pick the good outcomes and ignore the bad side of planning changes).

Upzoning has led to higher house prices in many cities, so I don’t think proponents can claim cheaper housing from the changes.

Also for a Canberra example, the 500 odd Mr Fluffy blocks certainly didn’t lead to cheaper housing. The new houses on a Mr Fluffy block generally each sold for much more than the value of the old.

I have a similar view that proponents of upzoning claim affordability as a benefit but avoid talking about the reality or evaluation the impact of previous upzoning with Rz2 and Mr Fluffy blocks in Canberra.

devils_advocate1:33 pm 12 Sep 23

The Mr Fluffy homes all by definition replaced older homes that were at the end of their economic life (even regardless of the deadly asbestos)

They were replaced by homes that meet current EER and other building standards and would have been built using current materials and labour costs.

Of course, buyers would in many cases have been able to sell for much higher than the capital cost, but that is a function of the lack of supply of quality houses in well-located areas, or supply in general, which this is attempting to address.

I agree that many Fluffy homes would have been at the end of the economic life, and that replacements probably have had higher EER requirements.

I am saying the Mr Fluffy homes were not replaced by diverse affordable housing. From my observations in my suburb, they were replaced with larger, more expensive duplexes.

devils_advocate5:47 pm 12 Sep 23

@Michael C “ I am saying the Mr Fluffy homes were not replaced by diverse affordable housing. From my observations in my suburb, they were replaced with larger, more expensive duplexes.”

It doesn’t matter.

Any new supply reduces prices.

The people buying those “expensive duplexes” is one less person bidding for a more affordable home.

The what seems logical claim that “The people buying those “expensive duplexes” is one less person bidding for a more affordable home”. Hasn’t been backed up by the evidence and research in both Australia, NZ and US.

There’s not a one to one switch between properties and another location as you might assume. A sale of an expensive property in Reid doesn’t free up a cheaper property in Holt.

Housing in cities has many unexpected and paradoxical correlations and causations.

devils_advocate8:10 pm 12 Sep 23

“ A sale of an expensive property in Reid doesn’t free up a cheaper property in Holt.”

The sale of a property doesn’t free up a property, nor did I claim that it did.

However adding additional supply to the market does, regardless of what price point it is at.

A market does not consist of perfectly substitutable products.

Adding to supply in a market reduces the price compared to what it otherwise would be.

There may be other factors driving up prices in absolute terms, but adding supply is the only way to limit the increase in prices.

I am glad that there is a 120 square metre limit because it will mean that more modest affordable homes will be built with lower impact on permeable space and trees.

Otherwise, developers will continue to maximise their revenue and profit by knocking down existing houses and building large, more luxury oriented, double story townhouses.

devils_advocate9:55 am 12 Sep 23

Is double storey permitted for dual occupancies in the RZ1 zone?

Based on the reporting, I think the answer is “no – double storey are not permitted for dual occupancies in the RZ1 zone”. I have not gotten across the new planning documents to answer the question.

Not according to what Andrew Barr said

devils_advocate1:30 pm 12 Sep 23

“developers will continue to maximise their revenue and profit by knocking down existing houses and building large, more luxury oriented, double story townhouses.”

I’m not sure that, even in the absence of a 120m size limit, that developers would be falling over themselves to redevelop the rz1 blocks, given the storey limitations (assuming those are unchanged) setbacks, solar access, plot ratios (in many cases 35%) etc etc

Realistically you would in most cases need a 900 or 1000m block to make this work depending on total GFA and the existing residence, however you could get a *reasonable* 3 brm ensuite home with a single open plan living area out of 120m (most ex-govvies were this size or smaller)

Realistically this might make a marginal change with existing owners of suitable sized RZ1 blocks (which have not been released in decades) choosing to utilise their land with the benefit of being able to subdivide the secondary residence, this could potentially encourage more of this.

“I’m not sure that, even in the absence of a 120m size limit, that developers would be falling over themselves to redevelop the rz1 blocks, given the storey limitations (assuming those are unchanged) setbacks, solar access, plot ratios (in many cases 35%) etc etc”

Fair call.

I do believe that developers are disappointed by the restrictions on developing in Rz1. I think they hoped for a more laissez faire approach, and suspect that some of those famous stakeholders that Andrew Barr referred to in negotiations, were dubious about what would actually be built (ie expensive and large) in RZ1 without restrictions.

devils_advocate8:23 pm 12 Sep 23

I don’t believe developers would actually have been disappointed by the outcome re: RZ1. It would potentially have tanked the land value component of a lot of existing low-density developments currently underway, if they had effectively said all the previous RZ2 rules now apply to RZ1. Would also have put a serious upper limit on the prices that could be charged for green fields blocks on the city fringes.

Good. Double storey homes are more likely to shadow neighbours than single storey.

devils_advocate2:51 pm 18 Sep 23

@Maya123

Uhhhh… you realise that for a single dwelling, double storey has always been allowed in RZ1, and at a 50% plot ratio?

In any case, the number of stories does not actually impact the solar envelope, as the height control and storeys control are separate/additional to the solar envelope and overshadowing criteria

devils_advocate wrote, “In any case, the number of stories does not actually impact the solar envelope,
You mean that after the double storey home was built next door, the shadow that wasn’t there before, and now shading part of my house, is my imagination. It’s only the double storey part that shades, not the single storey part.

devils_advocate10:22 am 19 Sep 23

@Maya123

“ You mean that after the double storey home was built next door, the shadow that wasn’t there before, and now shading part of my house, is my imagination. It’s only the double storey part that shades, not the single storey part.”

You mean, the 2 storey structure that has ALWAYS been allowable on a single dwelling RZ1 block?

What does that have to do with the current changes that are the subject of the article?

devils_advocate, I have always argued that shadowing should be taken into account, as solar access reduces (might even eliminate it in some cases) the need to heat and so reduces energy consumption.
I like the current changes allowing two houses on blocks over 800sqm. In fact I think two houses up to 120 sqm should be allowed on blocks over 700 sqm (that’s the size of my neighbour’s block who has two houses on the block. They should have been restricted to single storey though), but they must take into account solar access, as it should be for all developments, unless a financial compensation agreement can be reached with the neighbour to be shaded. That’s what I am saying.

devils_advocate12:41 pm 19 Sep 23

“(that’s the size of my neighbour’s block who has two houses on the block. They should have been restricted to single storey though)”

So they have built a dual occupancy on an RZ1 block with one or both buildings having 2 stories?

The one at the back is partly double storey. The original house is single storey.

devils_advocate, “double storey has always been allowed in RZ1”
When my house was built the flat roof of my garage had to be lowered (so now it slopes down lower one side) to stop shading on my neighbour’s property (fair enough), but the shading from that would likely not have been as bad as the double storey house (mezzanine) that was allowed from one of my other neighbours builds, because of the time of day and sun height.

devils_advocate2:53 pm 19 Sep 23

Based on your description of a mezzanine, what has probably happened is:
a) they excavated a basement but the finished floor level of the ground floor is at or below 1 meter above Natural Ground Level; or
b) the block has quite a slope on it, and they have in fact done a split level

Neither of those things is actually “double storey” and would have been permitted anyway in the RZ1 zone regardless of any changes to unit titling

No excavation. No slope. I get that a mezzanine is likely where you can have a double storey house, but pretend it isn’t and get away with it. Could have been worse. Only one room (my bedroom) gets the extra shade. The sun is its only heating.

monica beran4:58 am 12 Sep 23

I’m glad l am old and not going to see Canberra the “Bush Capital” becoming a rabbit warren like so many other cities. I have lived here since 1949 and seen detrimental changes occurring. We were made to believe this city being planned and not allowed to grow ad hoc at the whim of whoever is in government. It is no longer “a good place to bring up kids” as it’s reputation used to be. The public has no say on what and how our huge rates and taxes are spent. I think Developers have a lot to answer . What do you think ?

devils_advocate10:26 am 12 Sep 23

What are the actual changes to the amenity of residential zones that you think will result from these specific changes? Allowing dual occupancies in the RZ1 zone to be unit titled in some cases would not impact relative to what is currently allowed since dual occupancies on a single title are already allowed.

I agree with you Monica. The new cheek by jowl developments in some Canberra suburbs are a disgrace. This government is definitely developer driven.

shannos, In some suburbs people built houses too big for the block and fill the whole block. House sizes have grown through the years. Unfortunately I can’t put a graph here, but in 1950 the average Australian house was 100 sq m, smaller the the 120 sq m house allowed for the second house on the 800 sq m blocks. In 1985 it was about 160 sq m, rising to almost 250 sq m in 2009. Since then it has come down to about 230 sq m. People could again build smaller houses and not be so “cheek by jowl”. The average household size today is also smaller than in the past.

HiddenDragon8:15 pm 11 Sep 23

“Our plan is more ambitious, it allows a greater variety of housing by not limiting the size – would a family be able to live effectively in a 120 square metre granny flat?” he asked.

The ACT Liberals seem to be overlooking the point that these new policies for the RZ1 parts of Canberra could (and it is a very big “could”, for a number of reasons) free up existing family homes by genuinely (and at long last) doing something sensible and practical about the “missing middle”.

The 120 square metre (excluding garage) size limit, and then only on larger blocks, should help by reducing the pressure/temptation to go multi-level (an obvious turn-off for people with mobility issues) and help to keep some lid on building costs and asking prices – and could still also provide homes which would be very desirable for families which aren’t looking for a McMansion/status symbol.

The real test will be whether a re-elected ACT Labor/Green government would keep faith with these policies, or succumb to the “let ‘er rip” forces which would destroy the fabric of Canberra suburbia and thus end up alienating far more people than it pleases – something which the ACT Liberals seem to be in a hurry to do.

I am glad that there is a 120 square metre limit because it will mean that more modest affordable homes will be built with lower impact on permeable space and trees.

Otherwise, developers will continue to maximise their revenue and profit by knocking down existing houses and building large, more luxury oriented, double story townhouses.

Criticised for not going far enough!!!! No doubt from people with a vested interested ??? What about the people that live in these areas , do they get a say ? I think I know the answer

davol: I live in an older inner area. Bring it on. Great idea.

Yeah thats your thoughts , I didn’t buy in my suburb for this , how many more cars out on the street ?

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.