The ACT Government’s 50 per cent urban in-fill target was attacked last night as “”hopelessly unrealistic”.
Developer Bob Winnel said it was too low and not responsive to the market.
Only 15 to 20 per cent of what his company produced was traditional housing and it was the slowest to move.
He said there were too many restraints on in-fill and higher density.
“”The fundamental restraint is fear of change,” he said. He was talking at a Building Science Forum of Australia seminar.
At present the ACT Draft Territory Plan, which underpins the 50-50 target has been submitted by the Executive to the Assembly and is before the Assembly’s planning committee. It is expected to be made law later this year.
Mr Winnel said any design code was doomed to be out-of date as soon as it was printed. “”Administrators do not recognise this,” he said. “”They wield codes as tablets of stone, devices to be gleefully used to prevent innovation.”
Resident resistance and self-interested nimbyism prevented efficient and desirable in-fill and extra costs were caused by union-based classifications of two- and three-storey buildings as commercial, and transaction costs (lawyers and stamp duty) for people moving from traditional houses to medium density.
There was too little consultation on fundamentals, “”like a vision for our future” and “”too much on set pieces of confrontation in which no-one wins”. The planning appeal system could be hijacked by minority voices and interests.
“”Environmentally, our land-consumptive, private-car favouring habits need in-fill as one of their cures,” he said. “”The bush capital is threatened far more by urban sprawl that it would ever be by appropriate redevelopment. Housing in exciting and diverse neighbourhoods is being denied our community. Each of us must pay, in taxes and rates, to put nearly all our 3500 dwellings per year on the edges.”
Given the restraints on in-fill at the centre, Mr Winnel said that Gungahlin offered an opportunity to show how well-designed high-density development could work. This would educate people about its advantages elsewhere in the city and enable the restraints on urban infill to be overcome.
Architect and planner Colin Stewart said some lateral thinking was needed. Designers should be brought in at an early stage. They should be given a clear brief setting out the needs, requirements and rules. It was no good bringing in designers at the last minute to salvage the results of a poor process.
Rigid planning rules could be relaxed in cases where developers produced good design that used good orientation and respected existing amenity and privacy. In those cases they could get better floorspace-to-land ratios.
He called for a return to some of the precinct ethos that did not give priority to the motor car, but promoted good integrated environmental design in an area.
Bill Dagger, from the Department of Urban Services building control section, said his section wanted to allow the good elements of in-fill. However, it would police some things without compromise.
“”As housing densities increase so do building regulations,” he said.
Fire restraint, street lighting, waste disposal and sound suppression would be policed.
“”Building Control will police with vigour the retention and protection of street trees and the roadside verges which support this valuable inner-city heritage,” he said.
“”Some developers fail to recognise the added market value these tree are to their own development aside from what they mean to the citizens of Canberra.”