“The package of planning changes, to come in force in November, is based on the “mantra of higher-density city good, lower density bad’, rather than evidence,” says former planner MIKE QUIRK.  

THE ACT government has released updated district strategies, the new Territory Plan and new design guides. 

Consistent with the 2018 Planning Strategy, each district strategy identifies areas that may be suitable to accommodate future housing needs. 

However, the fundamental weakness of the 2018 Planning Strategy is that, while it argued the delivery of a sustainable, compact and efficient city requires 70 per cent of new housing accommodated within the territory’s existing urban footprint, it failed to undertake detailed assessments of housing preferences, housing affordability, employment location, infrastructure, environmental and travel costs.

The district strategies identify a supply of between 117,800 and 148,500 dwellings, potentially more than enough to meet the estimated demand for 100,000 additional dwellings by 2050. 

They indicate the potential for an additional 28,500 to 31,500 dwellings in Belconnen; 14,500-25,500 in the inner north; 21,000-23,500 in Woden; 16,350-18,500 in Tuggeranong; 8000-13,500 in the inner south; 4500-5500 in Weston Creek and 20,000-24,000 in Molonglo. 

These estimates should be viewed with extreme caution as they assume a greatly increased demand for higher-density dwellings.

The district strategies acknowledge detailed investigations including environmental, heritage, infrastructure and land use are needed to identify a more definitive “target” yield by location. Until such analysis is undertaken, the estimates are of limited value. 

To implement the district strategies the unit titling of a second dwelling of up to 120sqm on blocks over 800sqm in RZ1 zones and two-storey apartments on RZ2 blocks are identified. 

The government needs to explain why the block and dwelling sizes were chosen. No analysis is provided of the likely demand, price or development cost of such dwellings. Was any analysis undertaken of the economics of redevelopment? 

Why were alternative approaches, such as widening the geographical extent of RZ2 areas to increase density around centres, rejected? 

Was consideration given to prohibiting redevelopment of blocks in the RZ2 areas for single dwellings to ensure the supply of sites for medium density dwellings? 

Why were block amalgamation guidelines, requiring larger redevelopment sites to achieve better results, not pursued? 

Given the dearth of analysis and a weakening of planning controls in the Territory Plan, it is uncertain whether the changes to the zoning rules will deliver affordable medium-density dwellings or improve the quality and lower the negative impacts of many redevelopments. 

Compact city policies have been a fundamental component of Canberra’s planning policies since the 1990s. The policies responded to demographic changes and increased travel and infrastructure costs arising from the reduced ability of the ACT to influence the location of major Commonwealth offices. The policies led to about 50 per cent of housing demand being accommodated in existing areas. 

There is an unmet demand for higher-density dwellings in inner areas from a range of households including those who cannot afford detached housing in established areas and those who want smaller, energy-efficient and low-maintenance dwellings. 

However, there is insufficient evidence on the depth of such demand. A strong preference for detached housing was revealed in the Winton Research Strategies 2015 Study, which also found dual occupancy and townhouses had more community acceptability than apartments. How much have preferences changed? 

While there are environmental constraints in potential greenfield areas, are they sufficient to prevent any development in such areas? Certainly Kowen has low ecological value. 

One consequence of the restriction of greenfield releases in the ACT has been the increase in car-dependent housing development in the surrounding region. 

High-quality greenfield developments with schools, shops and community services and good transport connections to the rest of the city can meet housing preferences and moderate housing demand and prices in inner areas. Will simply increasing the supply of higher density dwellings in high-value, inner-city locations moderate house prices? 

Despite densification policies since 1990, the mode share of public transport, cycling and walking has not increased. It is difficult for such modes to compete with the convenience of the car given the large number of employment and activity centres in Canberra. Will increased density result in a reduction in overall travel and car use, the disbenefits of which will be reduced by the electrification of most vehicles in the Territory by 2050? 

While the infrastructure costs of accommodating growth are generally higher in greenfield areas, such development also generates higher land revenues. The cost of infill can be understated. For example, the population of North Canberra initially peaked at 53,100 in 1971 before falling to 39,300 in 2001. Changes in planning policy facilitated the increase in population to 61,400 in 2021. The district’s population is projected to reach 98,500 in 2041 and 141,000 in 2060. Much of the social and physical infrastructure would need to be augmented or replaced to accommodate the mooted increase in population. 

Quality densification is necessary if Canberra is to adequately respond to the challenges it faces. The package of changes, to come in force in November, is based on the “mantra of higher-density city good, lower density bad”, rather than evidence.

Mike Quirk is a former NCA and ACT government planner.