It has taken the ACT Government a long time to recognise the fundamental flaws in its planning policy. It did so yesterday in its response to the Landsdown report on urban renewal. It did so in the face of concerted community pressure which should not be mistaken for selfish anti-development NIMBYs. Most of those community groups have said consistently that they have no objection to in-fill or urban renewal provided it is done well. To date all the evidence is that too often it is done badly, which helps neither the efficiency of the city nor its environmental, heritage or aesthetic qualities. Further, the recent land glut in Canberra shows that much of the urban renewal push has been unnecessary _ driven by greed rather than need.
Yesterday, the government backed away from its 50-50 greenfields-renewal policy and its policy of prima facie allowing multi-occupancy throughout Canberra provided the building is within the footprint.
The changes to the dual occupancy rules are welcome. The earlier rules were too broad and on many occasions threatened local amenity. Certainly the new rules will take the immediate electoral pressure off. Dual occupancies in new areas will be prohibited for five years; they will be limited to one storey unless a neighbouring house is two storey; they will be limited to two dwellings on a block; betterment tax will apply if the title is divided and they will be limited to blocks greater than 800 metres. Of course, there is a solid argument that divided title does not add to social need which can be satisfied by permitting dual occupancy (usually for relatives) on a single block. Divided title is a profit matter, for builders, government and leaseholders; not a social necessity.
The long-term challenge now for the government, the building industry and community groups is to make the new policy structure of local-area planning work. It has a lot going for it. People are more likely to get involved in a plan that pertains to their locality. It will enable planning to match local conditions and aspirations. To some extent, local-area planning will enable the onus to be reversed: instead of the previous policy of allowing in-fill or renewal unless it is proved to breach amenity, heritage or environmental standards, the new plans could put the onus on the developer to show the benefit of the renewal or in-fill.
That said, there is still the potential for dissatisfaction. No matter what the planning process and rules, if the departmental and ACT Planning Authority does not have the staff or skills to monitor applications satisfactorily, dissatisfaction will arise. The local-area planning may help overcome that with its insistence that neighbours be verbally consulted before applications are lodged. However, it may be that more architectural input is insisted upon. Another possibility is that applications go to an Assembly committee, in the way that planning applications routinely go before elected councils in other parts of Australia.
The essential point is that government, industry and residents look more at outcomes than processes. The aim has to be to enable Canberrans to live better.