Andrew Barr wants your comments on planning changes

The price of housing in Canberra is soaring. The land available is restricted and the aging population need more options. The reduction of land size for multiple dwelling housing is a great idea. Though I would prefer to see small developments (rather than groups of townhouses), such as duplexes, that can fit cohesively within the surrounding neighbourhood.

I think the idea of that subrub with the laneways behind was to present a pleasant and walkable streetscape, and keep cars and rubbish bins to the rear of the houses. I guess it didnt’ catch on.

2604 said :

GardeningGirl said :

Sorry, I still don’t get it. I’m not talking about access roads for houses that face major thoroughfares or for medium density developments, I’m talking about rows of individual houses with a street for the front doors and another street for the garages at the back. We parked at the entrance to one on the solar house tour a few years ago, very slummy looking (I mean by design, no reflection on the occupants).

Having a garage at the front of a house adds about 5 metres of width to the front of the house. Having the garage at the back means that the gubmint can flog blocks that are much narrower.

Yep that’s about it. Rear lanes worked once when they only had to be big enough to fit a garbo truck down. Now they are parking lots because people fill their double garages up with so much crap they can’t even get a single car in them.

Fer pete’s sake people – have a garage sale.

GardeningGirl said :

Sorry, I still don’t get it. I’m not talking about access roads for houses that face major thoroughfares or for medium density developments, I’m talking about rows of individual houses with a street for the front doors and another street for the garages at the back. We parked at the entrance to one on the solar house tour a few years ago, very slummy looking (I mean by design, no reflection on the occupants).

Having a garage at the front of a house adds about 5 metres of width to the front of the house. Having the garage at the back means that the gubmint can flog blocks that are much narrower.

Sorry, I still don’t get it. I’m not talking about access roads for houses that face major thoroughfares or for medium density developments, I’m talking about rows of individual houses with a street for the front doors and another street for the garages at the back. We parked at the entrance to one on the solar house tour a few years ago, very slummy looking (I mean by design, no reflection on the occupants).

hax said :

GardeningGirl said :

Can someone explain to me the thinking behind the double roads in parts of Gungahlin, with a street in front of the house and an access road behind for the garages?

Good question! I’ve wondered this myself, such small blocks and narrow roads, but then there’s parts where there seems to be an overkill (while other parts there’s no chance of 2 vehicles being in both lanes at the same time, and buses struggling to get around narrow corners and taking up the whole road)

Flemington Rd will eventually carry a massive amount of traffic. Remember Gungahlin is not even half way there yet, with a final population of around 100,000 to come. People have trouble conceiving just how that much growth will change things. Even the LDA often doesn’t seem to understand the implications, frequently implementing short-sighted quick fixes and underutilising land that should go for much higher uses…

So it is 2 lanes each way to carry the arterial needs. Then there are going to be apartment complexes up to 4 stories (6 stories around the Nullarbor Ave intersection) right along both sides (less some park/reserve space). Those buildings needs access, so there are one lane service roads alongside the arterial lanes.

There is also space left down the middle for the day when we finally have a transport minister with vision. ACTPLA planned the corridor just wide enough to put two light rail lines down there. It will not be planted out.

And it is all coming to a close quickly now and is looking good. Alas, a lack of planning means that we’ll all have a battle to bottleneck back down to one lane each way at either end… This is because the ACT Government only funded the works fronting the section of Flemington Rd where they wanted to sell off land, regardless of only needed another 300 metres or so to continue the 4 lanes down to the existing section in Mitchell.

This (only doing roadworks that are required to facilitate more land sales) has been a features of ACT ALP budgets for several years now (apart from the GDE). Only in this budget just gone has there instead been a focus on transport infrastructure for the people already here in Gungahlin.

People wonder why I get cranky about the things that happen in Gungahlin…?

GardeningGirl said :

Can someone explain to me the thinking behind the double roads in parts of Gungahlin, with a street in front of the house and an access road behind for the garages?

Good question! I’ve wondered this myself, such small blocks and narrow roads, but then there’s parts where there seems to be an overkill (while other parts there’s no chance of 2 vehicles being in both lanes at the same time, and buses struggling to get around narrow corners and taking up the whole road)

I don’t know where these ideas are coming from, but I’d prefer to see a bigger yard rather than a road running in front AND behind the house.

“mandating that 95 per cent of single dwelling blocks in an estate are positioned to enable buildings to have direct sun in winter. The new code contains tables which identify the block size, block dimensions, slope and orientation which make blocks suitable for improved solar access.”

“Every chance I get, I’m pushing the need to provide space for community gardens, and also the right to have a backyard if you design your house appropriately (as opposed to just because you can afford to slap down $300K+ on a block).”

“Smaller blocks also save a lot on costs. Doubling the number of people living in a given area doesnt double the infrastructure costs – you still only need one road”

I remember 20-25 years ago visiting a solar passive display home in Bruce. I remember well over a decade ago when the energy ratings were introduced for new construction being told the requirement didn’t apply if you were building on already released land because the land wouldn’t necessarily be suitably oriented (we found a block anyway and built a solar passive house). I thought by implication land released in the future would have to be suitable. NOW they’re finally doing something about solar orientation of housing blocks? Btw it’s laughable sometimes what real estate agents will say. If the house has an energy rating of about 1 and when you look at the map it’s obvious only one or two windows face north then calling it north facing like that’s a selling point is a joke.

It’s really quite depressing to see on the one hand some blocks in old suburbs going to waste with an acre of dead grass while anyone wanting to build new seems to have the option of paying a lot for no garden or paying even more for someplace they can knock down rebuild. Here’s an idea the money-grubbing government and developers won’t go for. I presume the other 5% is because there will be areas where because of a corner or the slope of the land or something it would be difficult to have an ideally oriented 300m2 block. So plan to include some large blocks instead, large enough for the house to be something other than a mass-produced rectangle, and with space for a real garden. Make those blocks available at the same price as the small blocks but only to purchasers with a proven track record of having a real garden. I’m sure the greenery will enhance the amenity of the whole neighbourhood, and at no cost to the government for ongoing maintenance. (We drove past the landscaped entrance/green belt to an older new development recently and it’s an overgrown mess, making me ask who will look after the green belts in the new suburbs in the long term anyway?) In an age when planting trees and considering food miles and building sustainable housing is supposed to be good for the environment it is ridiculous that wanting to do ALL of that is made so expensive and complicated.

I’d love to see more community gardens. There was one we used to drive past which I recently noticed looks abandoned. Maybe having a sense of community and saving money by growing your own works better elsewhere?

Can someone explain to me the thinking behind the double roads in parts of Gungahlin, with a street in front of the house and an access road behind for the garages?

Holden Caulfield said :

More blocks, more tax. Well, that’s my uneducated theory anyway.

Smaller blocks also save a lot on costs. Doubling the number of people living in a given area doesnt double the infrastructure costs – you still only need one road, one sewerage system, one water main, one main electrical line. The only additional costs are the costs of running from the main line to each house and, perhaps, slightly larger capacity pipes.

There are streets in Asia (HK for example) that have over 10,000 people living on them. But the street is just a 4km normal road. In Canberra, you would probably have to build 50km of road (or more) for the same number of people.

miz said :

…I cannot understand why politicians are so ‘anti’ the ordinary suburban block…

Two words…

Stamp duty.

More blocks, more tax. Well, that’s my uneducated theory anyway.