28 November 2024

Cars should not trump access in townhouse developments

| Ian Bushnell
Join the conversation
85

The Whitlam townhouse has no side access, but there is a parking bay. Photo: Ian Bushnell.

One of the big sells of the new planning system was that the priority would be better outcomes over a slavish tick-the-box approach to the rules.

We were led to believe that this greater flexibility would lead to more innovative and creative developments, better neighbourhoods and less angst in the community about projects that may be compliant but were clearly on the nose.

However, there does not seem to be much common sense in the Planning Authority approving a three-level, four-bedroom family home and large backyard without side or rear access, especially when the reason for the builder dumping the alternative access is so visitor parking can be provided.

Is it because it is a townhouse development and not a standalone home?

READ ALSO From offices to boutique hotel, Punthill Tuggeranong offers home-like stays in Canberra’s south

Tom Adam bought the Whitlam townhouse off the plan (always a risk) for a little more than $1 million, so no small amount, specifically because it had the largest backyard of the development.

But he was blindsided when changes were made to the plans without his knowledge, and he was never notified.

The property was always envisaged as a family home with a large backyard and garden, you know, the kind where the grass needs to be mown, flower and vegetable beds built and trees planted. One where a lawn mower is needed and it, and soil and garden materials and tools, need to be transported from the front of the house. Now, these things will have to be moved through the house and its living area.

I know a little about this, having bought a much smaller townhouse in a much bigger development with no rear access.

It was one of the first things I noticed in the plans but walked into it with eyes open because everything else suited and it wasn’t a market to prevaricate in.

Lugging bags of soil and compost, pots and tools up a steep flight of stairs from the garage, through the living room to the small outdoor courtyard isn’t fun. Fortunately, there is no grass to cut.

But imagine the inconvenience of doing that and much more in a property the size of the one in Whitlam. Not much to enjoy there.

Which is a key point that Tom’s lawyer has made in relation to enjoyment of the property in negotiations with the builder.

The builder says there are plenty of properties in Canberra without rear or side access.

I bet there are. And that is a problem.

The Planning Authority says visitor parking is required, even though there are only five townhouses in the development because street parking was considered to be a potential safety hazard due to the intersection of two major roads and a roundabout.

But visitors can’t just park in the double garage driveways, they have to have their own bays. That meant the ramped side access had to go, according to the builder. And the Planning Authority obviously agreed because it approved the amended plans, although no one told the family who was purchasing the property and planned to live there.

Parking is a vexing issue for townhouse and apartment developments because it seems that no matter the double garages, basement car parks or designated visitor spaces, there are always too many cars.

On my early morning walks, the surrounding streets are clogged with parked cars (hell, there’s even a trailer parked outside permanently), and at my complex, every visitor space is taken, and sections of the internal laneway are lined with vehicles.

Now, unless a hell of a lot of people are staying over, my guess is that all those cars belong to residents. Which means there are multiple vehicles (often more than two) attached to residences.

It’s a hard problem to solve, short of building multi-level car parks nearby. While I’ve been told that the planning authority constantly underestimates parking requirements, how do you account for the multitude of extras – triple garages and triple spaces in the basement?

READ ALSO What is it about these buildings that feels so luxe?

For the Whitlam situation, though, these townhouses are more or less a row of individual homes, each with double garages and driveways. If, for some reason, a visitor could not park outside the garage, like people do everywhere, there is no reason why they could not find a park in a nearby street and walk.

The eye-sore of a parking bay will either be empty, become a storage or bin space or end up being a permanent home to a third car.

So, from a functional and aesthetic point of view, is this a better outcome than a family home being accessible to the people who live there?

Then there are issues such as safety, particularly in case of fire, when there may be only one way out of a building.

This is a situation that should never get to this point, where the buyer is unhappy, the builder may lose a sale or have their margin cut and the planning system is shown to be an ass.

The notion of single-access properties, particularly large townhouses, should be reviewed.

Join the conversation

85
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest
James Blythe10:25 pm 06 Dec 24

If their is no parking for visitors they whinge. If they make you to leave space for visitors they whinge. Case in point the rows of parked cars in Lawson which is a frequent site for near misses and some serious accidents as well. Never can please everyone. As for access, if one can get the bag of fertiliser or whatever from the shops to the property in their car, they sure can manage another flight of stairs up to the yard as well. Their must be some genuine issues worthy of publishing.

HiddenDragon7:50 pm 30 Nov 24

“Parking is a vexing issue for townhouse and apartment developments because it seems that no matter the double garages, basement car parks or designated visitor spaces, there are always too many cars.”

That reality is only a surprise and/or disappointment if you actually believe that most of the Canberrans who vote for “progressive” politicians genuinely embrace most of the policies (such as urban densification and active/public transport) which those politicians peddle, rather than voting that way because of habit/tribal loyalty and financial self-interest.

Densification will continue because it provides maximum revenue for a cash-strapped government and private car use will continue for many – out of necessity and also as one of the positive trade-offs, of sorts, for living in a small city – so more and more Canberrans will see housing choice and the lifestyle that goes with it as a perfect illustration of the 2024 word of the year from Macquarie dictionary –

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-26/macquarie-dictionary-word-of-the-year-2024/104648884

GrumpyGrandpa12:04 pm 30 Nov 24

Our townhouse is better than some. We have a double garage that faces the street and a seperate entry in through a small courtyard on the other side.
There are still issues with limited “Vistor” parking and the fact that many “Visitors” aren’t local “Vistors”, but ransom people who see a empty car park, within what is private property and just park there. I’ve seen many a tradie, real estate agent or average dude park there and walk to other complexes. On ocassions, cars are left there for days. Without a boom-gate or equivalent, there’s no means of preventing others from taking OUR “Vistor” parking.
In our townhouse, to wash your car, it’s either go to a car wash, cart buckets of water through the house or run a hose through your house to get to the car. Even then, you pretty much need to wash the car in one of the “Visitor” carports (if one is free).
There are obviously compromises with design, but these compromises should always be known upfront.

Incidental Tourist11:42 pm 29 Nov 24

I’ve heard anecdote about couple who moved from interstate to Canberra for work. They rented classical ozzie house in an established low density suburb similar to what they always used to live in. Unfortunately their marriage went off track. They decided to break up albeit on good terms. Each of them then attended open inspections in new concrete towers looking for a suitable bachelor rental. They were so dismayed by the tiny size, high density of motel-look and feel apartments, lack of storage, sense of incarceration and horror stories of midnight alarms that they both eventually regarded moving as a larger evil than their breakdown. In the end they cancelled split out and their marriage continued.

While I hate to psychologise too much, the point is that the boycotting of rear access in today’s residences is an unconscious cry for more conservative times – such as when the Victorian style terrace houses were built in Sydney – where rear access was positively not a common feature, and for the better

Dr Hein Vandenbergh12:11 pm 29 Nov 24

These always had rear access, via the ‘dunnyman’ back lane! Always a rear gate. And absolutely “for the better”. I’ve lived in plenty of them.

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.