14 December 2023

Let developers build bigger and higher if they exceed sustainability standards, report recommends

| Lizzie Waymouth
Join the conversation
26
    three people holding brochures in a kitchenACT Minister for Water, Energy and Emissions Reduction Shane Rattenbury, Property Council ACT executive director Shane Martin and Green Building Council of Australia CEO Davina Rooney at the launch of the Every Building Counts report. Photo: Supplied.

Governments should allow developers to increase the height and density of their projects if they exceed environmental standards, according to the Property Council and the Green Building Council.

Development applications should also be fast-tracked for projects that meet high sustainability requirements.

These recommendations come in a new report launched in Canberra this week, which sets out 40 policies for state and territory governments to consider to facilitate the rapid development of energy-efficient, all-electric new buildings.

Property Council ACT executive director Shane Martin said a “key pillar” of the Every Building Counts report is its call for governments to adopt incentives to encourage developers to plan sustainably.

The report also recommends finance mechanisms such as ‘green mortgages’ and stamp duty and land tax concessions for high-performing buildings.

Other key policy recommendations in the report include incentivising energy efficiency and electrification retrofits for existing homes, minimum performance standards for rental properties, and mandatory disclosure of energy efficiency at the point of sale.

READ ALSO Keggins Group buys Lawson blocks for $26 million

The report said implementing planning incentives would come at a low cost to governments and would have a number of benefits for developers.

“Planning incentives … would support the accelerated deployment of high-performing new buildings by targeting one of the highest priorities for building developers – the cost and time invested and the uncertainty of planning processes,” the report said.

Mr Martin said increasing the density of residential projects to develop more sustainable and higher-performing buildings “just makes sense” as it provides more homes that are comfortable and energy efficient to live in.

“Our view is if the ACT Government, along with other state and territory governments, take this up, we can continue the momentum that we currently have because through height bonuses and density bonuses, when it comes to buildings, we can effectively scale up our progress and we can lead towards the incentivisation of construction of high-performing buildings,” he added.

“Do we think about a generator in the basement, or do we increase the height to put some sort of generator or solar on the top and add an extra floor on top of that, which will just make it stack up feasibility-wise and allow much more kind of high performing buildings to be constructed?”

Mr Martin said this is particularly important to consider when it comes to commercial office space.

“In the ACT, we obviously have quite large tenants with the Federal Government.

“Federal governments are moving towards wanting their own green leases as well. We need to constantly keep pace, and the property industry wants to keep pace as well.”

Mr Martin said with the ACT’s new outcomes-based planning system, there could be an opportunity to consider ‘green door policies’ where development applications for sustainable buildings are fast-tracked.

“Here in the ACT, some other things could be the way we look at green door policies … Do we look at ways of essentially fast-tracking [DA approval] for buildings that are showing they’re above the general type in terms of their sustainability and their electricity driven nature?

“If this is an outcomes-based planning system, could we look at ways of speeding up and fast-tracking DAs for those high-performing buildings looking nationally?”

READ ALSO Canberra storm clean-up won’t be completed until after Christmas

ACT Minister for Water, Energy and Emissions Reduction Shane Rattenbury said he “really welcomed” the report’s recommendations.

“What [the Green Building Council and the Property Council] are demonstrating is real leadership in outlining the long-term future of buildings in Australia,” he said.

“Buildings are a big source of energy use and therefore emissions and planning now to have zero-emission buildings in the future is a really important moment to begin early and to make sure we know where we’re going in setting up this vision.

“Buildings, of course, last for a long time, so the buildings we’re building today will still be here in 2045 and 2050 when Australia expects to be net zero, so we need to be getting it right now.”

Mr Rattenbury said a key focus for the ACT Government has been creating a long-term agenda to give the construction industry more certainty.

“This something that the ACT Government is positioned to be able to implement. The report is very positive in that it creates a long-term vision and what we need in this space is certainly a clear plan to get us to net zero to decarbonise our buildings.”

Join the conversation

26
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

in other words, let’s fast track DA approvals for these buildings which claim green credentials so that the building owners can generate income quicker – self-serving or what!

the fast-tracking has nothing to do with “demonstrating leadership in the future of buildings” as the Minister claims.

if DA approvals are fast-tracked, are shortcuts taken in the approval process and/or other DAs moved down the queue?

People in inner city high rises don’t actually have a lower carbon footprint when ‘properly and holistically’ measured.

Does anyone really think the residents of Manhattan are some sort of low emission environmental warriors?

I bet Shane Rattenbury is amongst the worst 10% of emitting Canberrans if you factor in his flights, cruises, new electric car, restaurant use, trips to the coast, etc etc

Capital Retro9:59 pm 16 Dec 23

And he owns 2 x inner-city investment high rise apartments.

Capital Retro9:43 pm 14 Dec 23

It is madness to take such risks when Canberra is likely to cop a devastating earthquake.

“De-carbonizing” high rise apartments wont save them, either.

https://the-riotact.com/is-the-act-at-risk-of-earthquake-from-the-lake-george-fault/501440

HiddenDragon6:56 pm 14 Dec 23

The warm embrace of this massive try-on by a senior member of the ACT government is a perfect reminder and illustration of the fact that so much of what passes for the ACT economy is largely just a Green-washed population Ponzi-scheme, with an ever-growing ecosystem of symbiotic relationships between the regulators and the regulated which generates fake activity and well-paid b/s jobs that do precious little to improve the well-being of the rest of the community.

If the bending of rules in return for supposed surpassing of dodgy standards is meant to apply in suburbia, rather than just in town centres, a very good place to start would be with one of those “demonstration projects” we hear about from time to time on this site – said project should be on the northern boundary of Shane Rattenbury’s home.

Make sure you also reward them for not suppling car parking

The headline should simply state the current ACT government slogan: “Let developers build.”

Agree. I have my house already. I really can’t see why anyone else needs to be building new housing. I’m quite disappointed the Greens go along with the capitalist plot of developing extra housing stock. Shame on them for selling out, I say.

@Rustygear
“… the capitalist plot of developing extra housing stock.” And therein lies the problem … now if it was a plot to develop AFFORDABLE housing stock to address the crisis, that would be a different matter. But then again, we can’t have those strugglers getting into the housing market, can we?

JS what do you propose then? These developments you despise more or less *are* the vaguely affordable option. Certainly more so than the shabby chic houses in the inner suburbs that are sought by Greens voters. Building is expensive for multiple reasons. Zoning, subdivision costs and land rationing drive up prices on everyone’s ideal of a nice little cottage. And investors egged on by negative gearing continue to drive demand, assured by ponzi scheme policies for population expansion. In that environment, all that’s left is high rise development that’s not even really affordable. But in practice, without large upstream policy shifts, that’s all we’ve got: which sucks actually.

But I guess, if only middle class wokesters who know it all could initiate a kind and caring totalitarian social justice state, after dispatching craven developers and other assorted peddlers of wrongthink, there’s certain to be utopia; and all the problems for genuinely affordable housing (free for correct-think apparatchiks!) would just vanish with a wave of a furled arts degree.

@Rustygear
Can you actually put up a post without the cliched political hyperbole?
What do I propose? A good start would be addressing the free kick given to tax minimisers = negative gearing.

The heights of self serving manipulation look to be well exceeded here. Have any of these people heard of 3D printed housing for more sustainability with much faster build completions as well as 15% to 30% cheaper construction cost, less waste, less tradies needed, solid and often pre insulated, etc. Or will the current 3 to 4 story height limits of 3D printed apartment blocks also limit developer profits to be made from 20 story blocks and up? Could it be that the reason our regional mayors are more interested than our cities in 3D printed construction for faster and cheaper affordable housing be that the big developers don’t bother to set up shop in our smaller country towns?

We don’t want huge and congested skyscrapers in the bush capital Rattenbury. Oh yeah and you’re hanging your bets on o e source of power. Great idea Einstein.

A Christmas gift for developers for doing what they should do required to do. Meeting sustainability standards should be mandatory and enforced, not something that is rewarded by allowing development standards to be exceeded.

Agreed. Greater energy efficiency isn’t going to make an inappropriate development any better to live in or near.

No Minister, the residents of the Bush Capital don’t want to be surrounded by towers of glass and concrete, that’s why people choose to live in Canberra instead of one of the major capital cities.

We’ve moved on from the tiny “bush Capital”, by several hundred thousand.

Those extra people moved here because we are the capital of trees and wildlife, not concrete and steel.

nobody, Therefore, not the same as before. Pleased you agree.
Also, people often move for jobs, nothing to do with this “bush Capital”.

I came to Canberra for postgrad study and work, not the scenery. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a city and cities have to accommodate people. Otherwise, turn off the immigration flow, because that’s what’s driving all the development.

Well, I’m confounded, “greenies for high-rise towers” is an actual thing.

liveandletlive10:04 am 15 Dec 23

Nobody – bit dramatic don’t you think. I’m pretty sure 95% of Canberra residents will never be ‘surrounded by towers of glass and concrete’. Maybe you shouldn’t claim to know what Canberra residents want – pretty sure you never asked me….

Did the report review what happens to other buildings in an area? The energy use of the particular building is important, but what happens if it blocks light to neighboring buildings already in existent? Who is responsible to retro-fit those buildings to compensate?

megsy, hopefully blocking sunlight from older buildings will be taken into account, because that is not ‘green’.

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.