In this first of a two-part series, MIKE QUIRK outlines the evolution of the metropolitan planning strategy since the late 1950s and issues associated with an urban growth boundary.

Last month the Legislative Assembly called on the government to set an urban growth boundary (UGB) before the 2028 election. 

In response, Planning Minister Chris Steel stated the government’s intention was to create a UGB, after community consultation and consideration of the future land needs of the Territory, in 2027; and to introduce laws before the end of 2025 to overhaul Canberra’s residential zoning. 

These initiatives are seen as needed to better deliver the denser city benefits of a wider housing choice, improved affordability and reduced infrastructure requirements, travel and the environmental impacts of development. 

The Assembly, to ensure the development of Canberra is on the right path, should use the investigation of future land needs to scrutinise the merits of a UGB and the residential zoning reforms. 

The high-quality, low-density city 

From the late 1950s to the 1990s Canberra’s growth was guided by the Y-Plan. It identified a series of new-towns, including several towns in NSW in the one-million population version of the Plan. 

Activities were located in accord with a centres hierarchy – major office employment and higher order services and facilities at Civic and the town centres; major supermarkets and services and facilities at group centres serving a “group” of suburbs and neighbourhoods with primary schools and facilities meeting day-to-day needs; integrated pedestrian, cycle and open space networks and sites for higher-density housing near centres.

High accessibility was further assisted by the provision of quality transport links including peripheral parkways and the inter-town public transport spine. 

The dispersal of major Commonwealth offices to the town centres underpinned the strategy. The planning worked within the community’s preference for low-density living and the car. 

Towards a denser city

Much has changed since the preparation of the plan including a greater awareness of climate change and the environmental impacts of development; population decline in older areas leading to underutilisation of infrastructure, reduced housing affordability, an increased preference for higher-density housing in areas of high accessibility, a reduced ability to influence Commonwealth office location and land speculation in surrounding NSW, which made land acquisition unviable. 

To facilitate a denser city and its associated benefits the planning strategy was modified to provide around 50 per cent of land supply in the existing towns, which was increased to at least 70 per cent in the 2018 Strategy. 

Higher density residential zones (RZ2 and RZ3) were identified in and around centres and other areas with high accessibility. A lower density (RZ1) was also identified. High population growth in established areas was an outcome of the increased emphasis on urban consolidation.

The proponents of a UGB argue it will further deliver the benefits of a denser city. Greens MLA Jo Clay indicated the estimated average cost to the government to service a dwelling in Whitlam was $68,000 compared to $6500 in Woden. 

Infrastructure cost savings are possible but the extent is uncertain. In areas with substantial consolidation, such as north Canberra, where the population increased from 38,600 in 2001 to 62,000 in 2022, the capacity could be limited and costs to augment or replace exiting infrastructure substantial. Areas where capacity exists may have limited demand. 

Furthermore, a full cost comparison including travel costs and net environmental impacts is required. A denser city, if poorly managed, can result in the creation of heat islands, increased congestion, increased traffic accidents, a loss of privacy, vegetation and sunlight. 

Areas of high environmental value should be protected from development. However, the environmental value of possible greenfield areas (eg Kowen) have not been fully assessed. It is possible areas of low environmental value, which could effectively meet the lifestyle preferences of many households, particularly, if provided with high-quality service facilities and transport links, could be excluded from development.

The high level of office employment in Canberra suggests there could be merit in pursuing a “city deal” with the Commonwealth to disperse employment to the new towns. Their higher infrastructure costs could be recouped from the purchasers of the land. Increased employment in the new towns could also encourage the demand for higher-density dwellings.

Moreover, a poorly defined UGB would increase car-dependent development in the region, increase travel and reduce land sales, rates and Commonwealth grants revenues and diminish regional environmental assets.

A more appropriate response would be the preparation, in conjunction with the NSW state government and local councils, of a regional growth strategy, which would identify a pattern of regional development that best meets housing needs, optimises infrastructure provision and minimises environmental impacts. 

Will the Assembly persuade its Labor/Greens members to undertake a comprehensive assessment of growth options and plan within the reality of the ACT not being an island? Have Labor/Greens learnt nothing from the inept virtue-signalling decision to develop light rail?

Mike Quirk is a former NCDC and ACT government planner.

Next week – The Missing Middle: Panacea or Pandora’s Box