Some serious questions about over-development have arisen in Canberra and they deserve urgent movement attention. The most pressing problem is recent Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision ruling that the guidelines on multi-unit redevelopment have no force. Without them, it seems, the situation could degenerate into a virtual open slather on multi-unit and dual occupancy development. This would not be good for Canberra for several reasons. It is of utmost importance that the ACT Government strike the right balance between maintaining the residential amenity of existing residents and the need for more efficient use of land and infrastructure in the city. It is important that the Government maintain guidelines that are certain and enforceable. It is important for people engaging in redevelopment and for neighbours to know the limits. Those limits should give guarantees about light and space. The guidelines ruled upon by the AAT are apparently only draft guidelines. Those guidelines have been used for six years. They have become the working model upon which residents and developers have based lifestyle and investment decisions. They should be given force of law. They should also be reviewed in light of the severe risk that some suburbs face over-development and a change in their character.
The case ruled upon by the AAT is instructive. The guidelines state a block must be more than 1400 sq m before three units can be built upon it. If anything that is not big enough because it allows sub-division into blocks of just 467 sq m in what would have hitherto been a suburb of single residences. The case ruled upon has allowed three residences in an area less than 1400 sq m. It has also allowed the developer to ignore usual setbacks and private open space. Apparently the guidelines rule that no more than 35 per cent of the land be built on is of no effect. The guideline for dual occupancy is 800 sq m. Once divided it means a residence can sit on 400 sq m. This is absurdly small in the context of Canberra’s existing older suburbs and infrastructure. Indeed, it is a misuse of the infrastructure because it will not stand these add-ons.
In order to preserve the character of Canberra suburbs the Government should seriously consider limiting the number (by percentage of dwellings) per section of suburb and per suburb, after which there could be no more dual- or multi-occupancy redevelopments. Coupled with that it might look at vacant areas of land for medium density development, which usually use land more efficiently and can be more sensitive to noise, light and other amenity questions because they are designed that way from the beginning, whereas dual occupancies are imposed on areas which were not designed that way in the first place.
It is important to allow renewal in older areas. Without it, populations decline, the quality of housing stock declines and younger people do not move in. However, this can be achieved without allowing open slather for development.
There may well be grounds for quality new developments on Holder Oval now the school has closed; on the vacant land on the corner of Barry Drive and Bolderwood Street; and on the site near the Griffith shops. However, residents get rightly alarmed when developers attempt to cram on as many dwellings as physically possible for maximum profit. The suggested 200 residences in Griffith is simply too high.
If the Government and development industry want to reduce community objection they have to be more sensitive to the rights of existing residents and develop guidelines with better balance that provide them with some confidence that their residential environment will be sensitively renewed without being destroyed.