Images of Canberra - Sheep Paddock Ruined?

A house on 780 square metres sold in our street for $310 000 so by Urchin’s calculations, the house was thrown in for free. I agree with Urchin, what can you do on 250m2 of land. While the ACT revenue is tied to green fields land sales then the major landholder (the govt) will charge whatever developers will pay. Maybe freestanding houses on separate 250m2 lots in new suburbs just shouldn’t be planned. A first home owner will do a lot better moving in closer to the town centres ditching the second car and buying a good old govvie.

the suburban guy said :

but I don’t understand why the planning legislation allows for houses to be built that are way too big for the land it sits on, and inappropriate for the number of people living in them. If we’re going to ruin good sheep paoddocks we might as well do it well.

what size house would NOT be too big for 270-330m2 block? because unless you want to pay 250-300k just for the land, that’s all you’re gonna get (and even then only if you are “lucky”)

the suburban guy said :

…but I don’t understand why the planning legislation allows for houses to be built that are way too big for the land it sits on, and inappropriate for the number of people living in them.

IMO it doesn’t allow for houses way too big – it ensures they will be.

People are simply not going to spend $300-400k+ on a large block of land, to build a small house (with a decent size yard).

The decreasing size / increasing price of blocks is the reason / problem. (but investors can’t get enough of it!)

Draft Variation No 303 is just refining a few rough edges of the existing conditions, it doesn’t change anything dramatically from what I can see*. Expect more of the same.

(*I haven’t read it cover to cover, just some key areas)

The current review of the Planning and Development (Draft Variation No 303)is the best chance available to change the culture of building houses too big for the lots in both greenfield and infill. Canberra is unique for its abundance of trees and leafy character.I don’t oppose Green field or infill development but I don’t understand why the planning legislation allows for houses to be built that are way too big for the land it sits on, and inappropriate for the number of people living in them. If we’re going to ruin good sheep paoddocks we might as well do it well.

johnboy said :

“Are we still ruining good sheep paddocks?”

Well, yes we are. A more meaning full question would required judging the relative value of the land as sheep paddocks, or as small blocks of land with McMansions on them.

The ideal approach would be to build our housing on land which has no agricultural value, so that increasing the population does not result in lower productivity. Unfortunately, we like to live in nice places, and they tend to be good sheep paddocks (’round here at least) or have other value (aesthetic usually).