Planning has caused great angst in Canberra since self-government. There have been numerous changes to processes, a great number of inquiries and a great deal of threatened change. In short, it has been all tunnel and no light. Both major parties have tried to please all and pleased none. The Liberals want to get rid of the leasehold system as far as the Constitution will permit. Labor has spent three years unravelling the mess created by the first Territory Plan and the 50-50 policy (which it has now abandoned) and has pinned its hope on local-area planning. Residents will not express any great confidence in that until they see it in action.
The Greens have said higher-density occupation along public transport routes is essential. They want urban villages in Canberra and want “”to produce a new city form” based on greater density and reliance on public transport, especially light rail. It is an ideological stand, contracting with the major parties and the Moore Independents who have pragmatic stands, if differing ones. Oddly, developers, who ordinarily might see the Greens as an anathema, might like helping produce the new city form, though the Greens say they will have greater government and community involvement in the redevelopment program. The Moore Independents are committed to retaining existing Canberra, especially the heritage areas, through the leasehold system and 100 per cent betterment taxes for changes in land use. They see only a limited role for in-fill. For the major parties, the common ground is that both parties have seen the electoral downside of rampant dual occupancies and both have agreed with at least the Landsdown recommendations or stricter rules to make dual occupancy more palatable.
The Government will impose 100 per cent betterment if the title is to be divided; the Liberals would charge 50 per cent. There is no betterment if the title is not divided and the dual occupancy is a genuine granny flat. Both agree to a five-year ban on dual occupancy in new areas. The Liberals will give free renewals of residential and commercial leases. They argue that land values show no difference with freehold elsewhere and people should not have to pay for renewal. They say it is essential for business that renewals be automatic because some are facing long-term refinancing difficulties. Labor will charge 10 per cent of unimproved value for renewal of commercial leases.
The Liberals say this is a disguised tax on business which will affect employment and make Canberra less attractive for business. On greenfields development, Labor will continue with joint ventures and involve the government more. In North Watson, the Government will do the development. The Liberals stand for more private-sector involvement. On Gungahlin, the Liberals will start the town centre this year and permit strata title so businesses can own their own shops. It says it can build around the legless lizard habitat. Labor will says it will build the town centre “”as quickly as possible” while ensuring protection of endangered species.
Residents’ opposition to the 50-50 policy resulted in the formation of the Save Our City coalition under the umbrella of the Canberra Conservation Council. As a result of its pressure the Government responded with policy changes in the planning area _ abandoning or modifying major in-fill projects. That coalition, residents, the Government, the Opposition and developers all say they do not mind in-fill provided it is done well. All call for certainty and all call for flexibility. Therein lies the problem. Doing well, certainty and flexibility mean different things. The Government, whether to it credit or by necessity, can assert it has responded at least in part to community concern over what resident groups saw as rampant in-fill.
Labor appears set to engage public-housing tenants in the planning process. The Liberals have seen some of the bureaucratic problems with planning in Canberra. They want the Planning Authority to be a separate body with a separate staff. At present it is one person, who works in the same building as the department and uses departmental staff. Whatever the law and the formal process, good planning requires aesthetic, sensitive, intelligent, diligent decision-making. A stronger more independent authority may help stop some of the more tasteless, flog-em-off-the-plan proposals that have been permitted recently.
The planning issue is full of political contradictions. The pro-business Liberals also have in their constituency genteel, conservatives concerned with heritage and the aesthetic quality of the city. The high-density, public-transport ideology of the anti-economic rationalist Greens will delivery new opportunities to developers which the Greens may not be able to stop. The Labor Party _ suspicious of fast-buck business _ has a union constituency which likes building projects. Small wonder Michael Moore likes planning as a election issue.