Planning changes will pave the way for more missing middle homes in Canberra’s suburbs. Photo: Michelle Kroll.
No matter what way you look at it, the missing middle is coming to a suburb near you.
It’s just a matter of how much, where and at what price.
ACT Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment Dr Sophie Lewis didn’t mince her words in her report Close to the Edge: An Investigation into the effects of urban expansion on the environment of the ACT, which only reinforces the case for infill development.
The ACT Government had let urban sprawl take out significant tracts of biodiversity and, at the same time, had a patchy performance when it came to the city’s green infrastructure.
The environment just didn’t rate highly enough in legislation or dollars spent.
The urban boundary needed to be set and stuck to, and the infill percentage needed to be at least 70 per cent, not a target of up to 70 per cent.
So, no new suburbs beyond the current edge, and any new residential development to be within the current footprint.
The government may have copped a lashing, but if anything, the report bolsters its arguments for unlocking the suburbs for the low-rise apartments, terraces, duplexes and townhouses that the market needs and indeed is demanding, as the dream of the unattached suburban house becomes more unattainable.
Nobody wants to deal with the policy and tax settings from a generation ago that have helped take the nation to this point, so the mantra is supply and more supply.
In Canberra, this either means ‘there goes the neighbourhood’ or the opportunity to rent or buy a slightly more affordable home in a suburb closer to employment and with access to public transport.
The proposed missing middle planning changes have ticked a lot of boxes for the property industry, which will be allowed to build certain products where they previously couldn’t.
It is also happy that the hated 120 sqm limit on a secondary home on a block has been ditched, given the low take-up due to projects being unviable.
However, some in the industry also believe that it will still be hard to make a buck, which may dampen enthusiasm and frustrate the government’s agenda.
Resident groups fear that in order for a project to be viable, developers will have to max out the new density target, leaving little room for the trees, green and open space that the so-called gentle urbanism is supposed to retain.
Whatever the case, there will be more buildings and, as a result, less space. As always, it will come down to how this is done.
Complicating the equation for developers, who are likely to be of the smaller variety, is the planned increase to the canopy cover requirements from 15 to 20 per cent.
If the government is being honest about wanting Canberra’s suburbs to retain their character, then it may have to do more to thread the needle and find the right balance between brick and leaf.
It may have to provide some financial carrots that are within its powers, such as relenting on lease variation charges to avoid the ugly density it does not want.
Otherwise, the government could find itself wedged between developers pushing the envelope and not reaching its housing targets.
Under the new outcomes-based planning system, projects not quite up to scratch could be given the benefit of the doubt despite the rules around tree canopies, green space and setbacks, contradicting the government’s intentions.
Former government planner Richard Johnston says he would like to see more European townhouse developments that provide internal open space and trees to engender a sense of community instead of being given over to driveways and parking. Wouldn’t we all.
He also agrees with Greens MLA Jo Clay that there is more of a role for government to drive appropriate missing middle development instead of just hoping the market can deliver, suggesting a redevelopment agency.
No doubt, the property industry would only view this as adding another layer of bureaucracy, but it could also be a clear way for identified sites and projects that fit the bill, including affordability.
What could ease the pressure would be new areas of land within the current city footprint, such as the 700-hectare CSIRO Ginninderra site. After a decade of talk, the ACT and the Commonwealth need to close the deal so that a sizable piece of land can be developed.
But to expect young home buyers and renters, including families, to limit themselves to new and outer suburbs, or the towers of town centres, is not just unrealistic but unfair.
The planning changes are just proposals at this stage, and after consultation and in a dynamic Legislative Assembly, could easily evolve, hopefully for the better.
But change is coming. It’s just a matter of how it is managed.
