Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Lifestyle

Get RSM on your side at tax time.

Draft ACT Planning Strategy up for discussion, infill ahoy!

By johnboy - 17 October 2011 37

screenshot

Simon Corbell has unveiled the draft ACT Planning Strategy.

Greater development in and around town and group centres, as well as higher density housing on main transport corridors will play a key role in making Canberra a more sustainable city into the future, Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development, Simon Corbell, said today.

Mr Corbell made the comments while launching the draft ACT Planning Strategy at the Legislative Assembly today.

“This new strategy will guide Canberra’s development for the next 30 years by planning a compact and sustainably efficient city,” he said.

“It is vital we review Canberra’s planning strategy to ensure our city can adapt to change and meet similar challenges to other major cities, like climate change and population growth and well as sustainable development.

“By having higher housing density in or close to town and group centres, and along transport corridors, we will see a reduction in the community’s reliance on cars.

The Strategy is now up on the Time to Talk website.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
37 Responses to
Draft ACT Planning Strategy up for discussion, infill ahoy!
damien haas 6:30 pm 17 Oct 11

aresecarti – noted.

The problem with the ‘active transport’ stats is that cycling isnt a 12 months a year proposition for the bulk of people choosing that method, and closing schools in local areas and building larger super schools forces parents to drive their kids to or from school, instead of letting them walk/cycle.

I dont have a position on housing density – but the govt needs to put in place proper infrastructure for a medium to high density city. buses wont cut it. The only transit oriented development associated with bus rapid transit are bus stations.

They bang on about sustainable this and target that, and carbon reduction etc, but more people = more cars, more buses = more diesel.

The planning document is a lot better than the transport plan, but neither plan has any funding models, just lots of aspirational targets.

I think we deserve better from this government. Where is the ‘vision’. if i drive a car to work i will know that i can use the GDE or the majura parkway. if i choose to move to Molonglo i have no idea how i will travel – except it will be by bus, and history shows that it will take longer, be indirect and fail to attract passengers in any great number.

16% – aim low achieve it and still fail.

I-filed 6:14 pm 17 Oct 11

Does Simon Corbell live in medium density housing himself?

shadow boxer 6:01 pm 17 Oct 11

arescarti42 said :

shadow boxer said :

arescarti42 said :

I find it refreshing to see a democratically elected government considering things that will occur more than 2 or 3 years away.

I personally approve of the urban intensification strategy, increased densities around major retail/employment centres and along transport corridors is what this city needs..

Why ?

1. Because in my experience governments tend to mostly care about the impacts of their decision in the very short term, with little regard to the long term.

2. Because I believe well planned densification will make Canberra more vibrant and potentially more sustainable and affordable. I also believe good densification will allow Canberra to grow without adversely effecting the quality of life and character of the city.

Yeh I kind of disagree, I reckon if you asked people what they like about Canberra and what makes it unique they would say it’s decentralized nature, it’s leafy spacious suburbs, it’s bush like green belts and it’s plethora of open space near the city.

If you fill it all in it becomes just another crowded smelly noisy crime ridden city that are a dime a dozen anywhere. It’s not how it’s meant to be.

Far better to spread the employment than squash into the middle. It’s not like we are running out of land or anything

LSWCHP 5:39 pm 17 Oct 11

Has anybody driven past Crace? Do any Rioters live in Crace at the moment? From a distance, it looks to me like a huge and randomly arranged jumble of ugly concrete blocks jammed tightly together without consideration of aesthetics or anything else, for that matter.

If that’s the “higher density” where this is all heading, then the city is screwed.

arescarti42 5:20 pm 17 Oct 11

damien haas said :

Go and read the ‘Draft Transport Strategy’ – which is meant to guide transport planning until 2031 and you will see that the actual figure the ACT govt predict will use public transport in 2031 is 16%. Up from what they claim is 9% right now. Thats an amazingly low target.

This means that in 2031, our half million residents of a compact city of high density housing will still see 84 people in every 100 driving to work. That is not less reliance on cars, that is MORE cars. Very sustainable.

By pursuing a bus-only public transport strategy, the public transport patronage figure will only rise by a small amount. If they truly want to bring about a medium to high density ‘compact city’, they need to plan proper mass transit using light rail, and then encourage transit oriented development.

By encouraging medium and high density housing, without providing the proper public transport to support it, Canberra will experience all the disadvantages of high density housing, and none of the advantages.

Damien Haas – Chair, ACT Light Rail

I think your figures might be a little bit off Damien, in Canberra about as many people walk or cycle to work as use public transport, so if their 2031 target for PT usage is 16%, somewhat less than 84% will still be driving (not saying it still isn’t a low target though).

One thing to keep in mind is that you freeze new greenfield development now and put all the additional ~100k residents between now and 2031 in infill in the existing urban area and Canberra still wouldn’t be a dense city. Short of demolishing a lot existing suburbs, it is always going to be mostly low density suburbs.

The other thing to keep in mind is that as long as Canberra is mostly low density suburbs, and as long as cars are affordable by the majority of people (this may not be the case in the future) then the majority of people will still prefer to drive a lot of places.

damien haas 4:13 pm 17 Oct 11

The ACT Government is pursuing a medium to high density housing strategy, and using the ‘public transport, ‘transit route’ etc reasoning to justify it.

Go and read the ‘Draft Transport Strategy’ – which is meant to guide transport planning until 2031 and you will see that the actual figure the ACT govt predict will use public transport in 2031 is 16%. Up from what they claim is 9% right now. Thats an amazingly low target.

This means that in 2031, our half million residents of a compact city of high density housing will still see 84 people in every 100 driving to work. That is not less reliance on cars, that is MORE cars. Very sustainable.

By pursuing a bus-only public transport strategy, the public transport patronage figure will only rise by a small amount. If they truly want to bring about a medium to high density ‘compact city’, they need to plan proper mass transit using light rail, and then encourage transit oriented development.

By encouraging medium and high density housing, without providing the proper public transport to support it, Canberra will experience all the disadvantages of high density housing, and none of the advantages.

Damien Haas – Chair, ACT Light Rail

devils_advocate 3:57 pm 17 Oct 11

Keijidosha said :

“This new strategy will guide Canberra’s development for the next 30 years by planning a compact and sustainably efficient city,” he said.

Translation:
“This new strategy will ruin Canberra’s development for the next 30 years by allowing developers to haphazardly cram as much high density housing into existing suburbs as possible.”

My understanding (from talking to builders) was that the betterments tax was basically going to squash any such developments that hadn’t already been approved (as well as making already-approved-but-not-commenced-development blocks a lot more valuable).

Classified 3:46 pm 17 Oct 11

It’s easier to let developers do work rather than plan and execute new suburbs away from the city centre. Ultimately, that’s about all they can do, I suspect.

arescarti42 3:39 pm 17 Oct 11

shadow boxer said :

arescarti42 said :

I find it refreshing to see a democratically elected government considering things that will occur more than 2 or 3 years away.

I personally approve of the urban intensification strategy, increased densities around major retail/employment centres and along transport corridors is what this city needs..

Why ?

1. Because in my experience governments tend to mostly care about the impacts of their decision in the very short term, with little regard to the long term.

2. Because I believe well planned densification will make Canberra more vibrant and potentially more sustainable and affordable. I also believe good densification will allow Canberra to grow without adversely effecting the quality of life and character of the city.

arescarti42 3:31 pm 17 Oct 11

dpm said :

“By having higher housing density in or close to town and group centres, and along transport corridors, we will see a reduction in the community’s reliance on cars.”

So, are they planning on putting up a wall of apartments on both sides of the Tugg aprkway and GDE? Hahaha!

No. The plan makes the distinction between transit ways and parkways. Transit ways go through places and are what public transport would run along, and along which urban dense developments will occur. E.g. Northbourne Avenue and Yarra Glen. Parkways provide high speed routes around the city. E.g. Tuggeranong Parkway, GDE, Majura Road.

dpm 3:11 pm 17 Oct 11

“By having higher housing density in or close to town and group centres, and along transport corridors, we will see a reduction in the community’s reliance on cars.”

So, are they planning on putting up a wall of apartments on both sides of the Tugg aprkway and GDE? Hahaha!

shadow boxer 3:11 pm 17 Oct 11

arescarti42 said :

I find it refreshing to see a democratically elected government considering things that will occur more than 2 or 3 years away.

I personally approve of the urban intensification strategy, increased densities around major retail/employment centres and along transport corridors is what this city needs..

Why ?

arescarti42 2:55 pm 17 Oct 11

I find it refreshing to see a democratically elected government considering things that will occur more than 2 or 3 years away.

I personally approve of the urban intensification strategy, increased densities around major retail/employment centres and along transport corridors is what this city needs.

The section on housing affordability seemed to be the usual tokenistic faff though. Mandating extremely small blocks because land is so outrageously expensive is a poor way to deal with affordability.

I also found it interesting that the majority of the images in the publication were of cities that were clearly not Canberra.

housebound 2:45 pm 17 Oct 11

The Spatial Plan, which this will replace, says in its inside front cover:

” The Canberra Spatial plan provides clear strategic directions for the development of Cnaberra over the next 30 years and beyond. it is the territor’s ket strategic planning document for directing and managing urban growth and change”.

Strange how quickly 30 years go. I’ll be a great great grandma in no time at all.

Keijidosha 2:20 pm 17 Oct 11

“This new strategy will guide Canberra’s development for the next 30 years by planning a compact and sustainably efficient city,” he said.

Translation:
“This new strategy will ruin Canberra’s development for the next 30 years by allowing developers to haphazardly cram as much high density housing into existing suburbs as possible.”

“By having higher housing density in or close to town and group centres, and along transport corridors, we will see a reduction in the community’s reliance on cars.

Translation:
“By allowing urban ghettos to develop along already stressed transport corridors, we assume there will be a reduction in the community’s reliance on cars, because Gunghalin has no traffic problems whatsoever.”

1 2 3

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site