Canberra Granny Flat Builders director Frank Walmsley wonders how the ACT will reach its housing targets if the system doesn’t work with the intention behind the policy. Photo: Claire Fenwicke.
A Canberra business owner says the ACT’s planning system is “broken” and has accused the independent assessment body of abusing its power as the government seeks feedback on its revised missing middle reforms.
Canberra Granny Flat Builders director Frank Walmsley has taken aim at the ACT Planning Authority, stating a recent refusal of a development application for a second dwelling on a Latham block was an example of how the policy goals were being “undermined by process, culture, and lack of discretion” within the system.
“We’re being told the ACT is moving toward outcome-based planning and flexibility. In reality, families are being stonewalled by rigid interpretations, poor understanding of the legislation and a lack of procedural fairness,” he said.
His clients are a Latham family wanting to build a self-contained extension to support their ageing parents.
In a document seen by Region, the daughter describes wanting to allow her parents to remain in the neighbourhood they loved while supporting each other and respecting the area’s character.
She’s recently moved back to live with her parents due to their age and medical conditions.
“Our family has lived in this home ever since we moved to Australia in 1980,” she wrote.
“The house is small, with only one bathroom, but my parents are comfortable here and have no desire to move. My aim is to help them stay in their home for as long as possible, maintaining their dignity and quality of life.”
The granny flat would have been a one-bedroom, one-bathroom structure with a study nook and living room, covering a little over 50.5 square metres.
Its proposed location was chosen due to the placement of the original house, slope of the land, and a desire not to block sunlight into the main building.
“This plan would give me a space of my own while allowing us to continue supporting each other as a multigenerational family, without sacrificing privacy or independence,” the daughter wrote.
“This place truly feels like home to us, and we hope to continue living here for many years to come.”
The development application was knocked back by the ACT Planning Authority.
An ACT Government spokesperson said the proposal did not meet a “range of requirements” within the Territory Plan for a design within the RZ1 zone.
“These related to planning matters such as direct impacts on the streetscape and issues with residential movements and amenity,” they said.
“It is noted that the decision advises that the proposal requires refinement and/or reconfiguration to address some of the reasons for the decision.”
The notice of decision stated the development encroached into the front setback of the block, was positioned too close to the two front boundaries, and assessed the overall proposal as “poorly configured”.
“The bulk, scale and location of the proposed development conflict with the outcomes for the zone and the existing streetscape,” it stated.
“While it is acknowledged that the RZ1 zone may allow developments of a similar nature, the overall configuration of the development ultimately results in Territory Plan non-compliance.”
The government spokesperson added all proposals had to meet legislative requirements and ensure “suitable planning outcomes” were achieved.
“The applicant is encouraged to discuss with the Authority the matters that need to be addressed and the appropriate avenues for these to be considered,” they said.
“As review and appeal processes are open to the applicant, it is not appropriate to provide further comment on the proposal or influence the independent statutory process.”
Mr Walmsley and his client plan to appeal the decision.
He’s also called on the ACT Planning Committee to intervene and clarify the residential Crown lease variation process to allow for secondary dwellings.
“Despite the ACT Government’s clear support for affordable housing and the growing community demand for secondary dwellings, the current lease variation process is plagued by confusion, inconsistency and delays,” Mr Walmsley wrote to the Committee MLAs.
“We currently have half a dozen clients whose projects are stalled – despite following all available guidance – due to the lack of a transparent, efficient process.
“If we cannot streamline and manage this simple process, it raises serious doubts about how we will collectively meet the government’s target of delivering 30,000 new homes.”
He also wants the committee to investigate the Latham process as a “clear example” of how bureaucracy is undermining the planning reform’s intent.
Mr Walmsley claimed the rejection referred to documents that weren’t compulsory for this type of development, that no Request for Further Information was issued, and that the site was assessed through ACTimap rather than a physical inspection.
“This outcome shows the system is broken,” he said.
“It is a real-world example of how stated policy goals are being undermined by process, culture and a lack of discretion within the assessment system.”
