“What this government is now doing is abandoning any effective control on residential densities in suburban areas… at the same time reducing standards for on-site car parking,” writes planning expert RICHARD JOHNSTON.  

“For too long, the planning system has effectively prevented building anything in-between high-rise apartments or a freestanding house on most blocks in Canberra,” says Planning Minister Chris Steel.

This is, of course, untrue. 

He was announcing the approval of “missing middle” housing developments. 

The previously applying controls on RZ1 were brought in under the new Territory Plan 2008 by a Labor government and were a reaction to the relatively unconstrained development occurring on suburban blocks under the former Liberal government. 

The previous controls always allowed secondary dwellings or dual occupancies on single blocks in RZ1, but they focused higher-density development in more accessible areas around shopping centres (RZ2).  

In his media statement, the minister said he had approved Major Plan Amendment 04 to the Territory Plan with “landmark reforms… designed to enable more missing middle homes to be built within existing residential areas.” 

The statement says missing middle housing includes multi-occupancy housing, townhouses, terraces and low-rise apartments. The changes apply to all suburban (RZ1) residential zones and also RZ2 (typically around shopping centres). The maximum building height for RZ2 goes up to three storeys (plus attic).

What this government is now doing is abandoning any effective control on residential densities in suburban areas, including controls over block subdivision, and at the same time reducing standards for on-site car parking, planting area and private open space. 

No attempt has been made to identify appropriate locations for increased density or deal with the impacts on infrastructure, which will inevitably follow unplanned redevelopment occurring anywhere across Canberra’s suburban areas.

“Landmark reforms” indeed. They are more likely to be a tombstone for this government, replaying in even more dramatic fashion events of about a quarter of a century ago that have clearly been forgotten by those now in charge of the ACT planning system.

It is notable that there is only one brief mention in the media release of the Legislative Assembly’s Standing Committee on Transport and Planning [actually Environment and Planning] Inquiry into DPA-04 whose report was only released on April 30 after six months of scrutiny including public hearings into the missing middle proposals.

It took the minister and his officials a breath-taking three weeks to approve a final version of DPA-04, with very little indication of specific responses to the committee’s 112-page report and its 18 recommendations.

I note one of these recommendations in particular:

15. The Committee recommends that the ACT Government amend the District Strategies to include: 

• statements on local/neighbourhood/streetscape character, heritage character and relationship to the National Capital Plan to establish the context within which greater densities in RZ1 and RZ2 suburban zones, which is especially important for block consolidations; 
• assessment of individual developments as well as allow consideration of cumulative impacts; and 
• a requirement that Development Assessment Outcome reports respond to the character statements and amendments to the District Policy. 

This recommendation is a critical recognition that the proposed open-slather changes will have impacts on established local/neighbourhood/streetscape character and heritage character, particularly in the older, low-density, well-treed parts of inner Canberra. 

There is no indication in the minister’s approval of DPA-04 of any response to Recommendation 15. Perhaps he didn’t have time to read that far in the Committee’s report.

The drawing accompanying this article is taken from the government’s new “Missing Middle Housing Design Guide, page 82” and purports to show “Missing middle development integrating into and becoming a part of the streetscape”. 

If that’s what the Territory Planning Authority regards as a good example of appropriate contextual design, then heaven help our established and cherished residential environment and its “Garden City” character.

Richard Johnston, Life Fellow, Planning Institute of Australia