Design Matters: Canberra planning rules should spark creativity

Allan Spira is a local self-employed architect who thinks we need to change planning regulations to enable “ageing in place” in the Canberra suburbs.

TT: In my recent experience there seems to be two opposing voices arising from the clamour generated by redevelopment in the inner suburbs. One group was seeking to have opportunities to “age in place” but faced a policy of the sterilisation of large appropriate blocks while others viewed change as an insidious assault on the character of their suburb.

AS: Yep, it seems like trench warfare sometimes. One of the key generators for architects to jump into the debate is that there is a requirement to respond to the needs of a growing cohort of ageing baby boomers, a large percentage of whom are empty nesters, living in owner-occupied detached housing, who do not want to live in an apartment, and are unable to find alternative more compact accommodation in their established neighbourhoods.

TT: Are architects just trying to generate more work for themselves?

AS: Architects are not advocating for more development in itself and lament that much redevelopment that has occurred in the past is of poor quality and has disaffected residents and community associations. We need to engage the broader community in having a say over the quality of development to make Canberra a better place to live. Since self-government, our politically sensitive legislatures have reacted timidly by imposing restrictive planning controls which have maintained the status quo thereby limiting housing options in established suburbs.

TT: So what is a “better” planning regime?

AS: Rather than the current overly prescriptive “tick-box” planning system (that is, quantitative controls), we believe that the adoption of performance guidelines (that is, qualitative guidelines with a few critical envelope controls) would result in better design outcomes, increased diversity and density while respecting the existing character of established neighbourhoods. We also need policies to directly address the need for affordable housing for low income earners. A more flexible planning system would allow a responsive market to address the housing needs of a greater number of residents, indirectly helping to make housing more affordable.

TT: Can you give us a specific example of the current mentality of the government dropping the ball in planning terms?

AS: OK, look at the lost potential from the Mr Fluffy saga. More than 100 of the affected blocks were adjoining and, had amalgamation been allowed, they could have been developed as much sought-after compact townhouses (say, six units on a pair of adjoining Mr Fluffy blocks), yielding higher returns to the government. Despite numerous submissions calling for more innovation and opportunity, the current policy was enacted to allow unit titling on single residential blocks where neighbouring buildings are not allowed the same privilege. The resultant development is producing a less than ideal form of urban consolidation and much neighbourly consternation. The whole Fluffy rezoning was a financial response, squandering a significant opportunity for creative planning outcomes.

Tony Trobe is director of the local practice TT Architecture. Is there a planning or design issue in Canberra you’d like to discuss? Email tonytrobe@ttarchitecture.com.au.