In the second of his two-part series on managing population growth, planning columnist MIKE QUIRK looks more locally and finds the ACT needs to lift its game…

In Canberra, as in Australia, there are divergent views on the merits of future population growth. 

Opponents argue growth has to be curtailed as it depletes natural resources, reduces biodiversity and housing affordability and increases carbon emissions, soil degradation, pollution and deforestation. 

Proponents argue a larger population drives the economy and is needed to counteract an aging population which is producing labour shortages, lower tax revenues and strains on community and health services. 

The level of population growth in the ACT can be volatile. Major downturns were experienced from constrained federal spending in the Fraser and the early Howard years. 

Since then, apart from 2020-21 and 2021-22 when covid border restrictions reduced growth, growth has been consistently strong. The population increased by 9650 in 2022-23 to 466,600 primarily from the rebound in Net Overseas Migration (NOM) associated with the removal of border restrictions. Of the growth NOM was 8500, natural increase 2700 while there was a loss of 1600 from net interstate migration (NIM).

Given the potential variability in growth, housing strategies and infrastructure programs need to be flexible and guided by the detailed assessments of trends. Projections in 2002, influenced by low growth expectations, were a major consideration in school closures. 

The 2022 ACT Projections (medium series), derived from assumptions of fertility, mortality, NIM and NOM, project an ACT population of 784,000 in 2060. NOM is the main driver of growth.

The future level of population could be lower than projected from constraints on federal government spending, lower fertility (the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) assumed in the projection was 1.5 babies per women; the 2023 TFR was 1.31), lower NOM from pandemics, to reduce environmental impacts or from the reduced availability of skilled migrants. 

The level and composition of the population have major implications for the provision of schools, health, transport, housing and other facilities and services. Given the complexity of the issues, it is concerning that the ACT has not had the benefit of an in-house demographer for almost a decade.

Whatever the level of growth, the ACT government is primarily responsible for its management. Like other state and territory governments, it has adopted a policy of developing a more compact city. The policy direction is to accommodate an increased proportion of housing demand in established areas to reduce travel, environmental and infrastructure costs and to respond to demands for housing close to facilities and services. 

Some argue an urban growth boundary should be established to minimise the damage to the natural environment. Their manta is to “build up not out”. The alternative view is the policy has resulted in the loss of tree cover, increased congestion and housing costs in established areas, the impact akin to “we had to destroy the village to save the village”.

Policy implementation has been poor

While the greater emphasis on consolidation is appropriate, the implementation of the policy has been poor.   

The efficacy of the policy would have been greatly improved if it had been based on analysis of infrastructure costs, travel costs and housing preferences and how these preferences could be met by better designed higher-density dwellings in established areas. Generally, detached dwellings are demolished to make way for a McMansion, two, maybe three townhouses, or a second dwelling added to the original house. 

Block amalgamation would aid the development of better-designed medium-rise development, achieving higher density while preserving greenery, usable open space and reducing the amount of hard surfaces. 

An ACT Housing redevelopment in Kambah, where four housing blocks were redeveloped to provide 10 two-storey units and two single-storey units, is an example of how better outcomes can be achieved through block amalgamation.

In the transition to a higher-density city there will be an ongoing need for new detached blocks until there are sufficient appropriate higher-density dwellings available. 

Potential new supply areas are of varying environmental quality and have different infrastructure and travel costs. Analysis of the western edge area and other potential areas, including Kowen, may identify appropriate greenfield areas. 

Any greenfield developments should have a range of facilities and services, good transport connections, employment and requirements that minimise runoff and promote energy efficiency.

It should also be noted, housing location is only one factor in a household’s environmental footprint. While an inner-city location may reduce some emissions, the higher incomes of residents often results in a larger ecological footprint than residents in outer suburbs. 

Per capita water and energy use of higher density dwellings can be higher than detached houses. Stormwater run-off is also greater. The energy efficiency of the building and transport sectors need further improvement as do strategies to reduce car use. 

The National Urban Policy released in late 2024 by the federal government, after input from state and territory governments, aims to “enable our urban areas to be liveable, equitable, productive, sustainable and resilient”. 

It can provide a useful framework for considering urban issues. Its success will depend on the ability of individual jurisdictions to apply the directions appropriately for the challenges they face. The ACT has to lift its game.

Mike Quirk is a former NCDC and ACT government planner. 

The problem with too many or too few people