Plot ratios on most of Canberra's residential land should be scaled back to fix 17 years of "band-aid" planning policies, a leading ACT real estate agent has said.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
The future of Canberra's housing planning policies is currently being debated, with an ageing population and shrinking households putting pressure on the "missing middle" of the city's housing market.
A government discussion paper floated separate unit titling of dual occupancies in RZ1 zones to address the shortage of medium-density housing.
The head of project planning at the Independent Property Group, David Shearer, said plot ratios in RZ1 zones should be capped at 35 per cent to enable smaller, one-storey townhouses to be built on the subdivided blocks.
That would mean "two very comfortable" houses of 140 square metres could be built on a 800-square-metre block, or three homes of 112 square metres could be built on a 1000 square metre block, Mr Shearer said.
The average floor areas of Canberra houses built in 2016-17 was 197 metres. The average size of apartments was 95.8 square metres.
Dual occupancies are currently allowed in the RZ1 zone, which accounts for 81 per cent of Canberra's residential land, but only on blocks larger than 800 square metres or that used to have Mr Fluffy homes.
However the unit titles for the properties can't be separated, meaning they must be sold together.
Mr Shearer said hikes to the lease variation charge would "kill dead" any prospective development activity that changes to the dual occupancy rules would spark.
But if the territory's taxation and planning policies were brought "in kilter" with one another, it would be a "sensible" way to bring small, accessible, single-level houses into the mix, Mr Shearer said.
He said the ACT government's decision to ban dual occupancies in RZ1 was a "political" one, caused by "incessant bickering" in ACAT by a "small handful of repeat offenders".
"People would go to the tribunal dozens of times about small developments," Mr Shearer said.
"It costs bugger-all to go to the appeals tribunal but for someone defending that decision a typical appeal costs $60,000 to $80,000 because they have to engage solicitors and barristers.
"The people who will go and argue their lungs out in the tribunal to prevent development occurring are exactly the same people who five years later complain there's nothing to move into."
As a result, the ACT government tightened up the rules around dual occupancies in RZ1 zones in 2003 through a territory plan variation known as DV200.
"DV200 basically killed dual occupancy but it didn't just kill dual occupancy, it killed all development in RZ1," Mr Shearer said.
"The only thing you could do in RZ1 was single occupancies or extending houses. Any type redevelopment was knocked on the head. The whole system is band-aid after band-aid that ruined a perfectly good policy that was there before it."
Mr Shearer advocated for "sensible redevelopment" in RZ1.
"It should predominantly be single storey, winding the clock back to 2000 with a 35 per cent plot ratio of [gross floor area] limit," Mr Shearer said.
"Everyone thinks higher density gets more people but a 50 per cent plot ratio is so objected to by neighbours, that's what they fight at the appeals tribunal.
"When you have a 35 per cent plot ratio there's virtually no incentive for a basement garage or two-storey building."
Planning Minister Mick Gentleman said the ACT government was "very keen to hear all options and suggestions proposed" by industry and the community but refused to answer whether scaling back plot ratios would seriously be considered.
But Australian Institute of Architects ACT chapter president Rob Henry said a "one-stage approach" would not solve the problems with Canberra's housing mix.
"Simply changing plot ratios won't create the communities we're after. For densification the code needs to work differently in different areas. What could be suitable for the inner north won't be suitable for the inner south," Mr Henry said.
"We support the dual occupancy elements of the housing choices [paper] that's been put forward. We'd like to see some mapping happening through various suburbs to look at transport routes and how we can densify along those routes and easily support mixed-use developments."
