Greg Barns Talking Point: Skylands won’t fix Tasmania’s housing crisis

Tasmania has a critical shortage of housing, but caution is needed in addressing that issue. The last thing this state needs is more broadacre estates with no access to public transport and poor services.

TASMANIA has a critical shortage of housing, but caution is needed in addressing that issue. The last thing this state needs is more broadacre estates with no access to public transport and poor services.

This means that the proposed Droughty Point development, called Skylands, pushed by some councillors in Clarence and self-interested groups like the Master Builders, should not see the light of day.

Instead the Clarence council, the majority of whom rightly voted down the idea that a strip of land miles from Hobart should be turned into drab suburban lots, should be looking at infill development in areas such as Bellerive, Rosny and the like.

Ditto all urban local government authorities such as Hobart and Kingborough.

Planning Minister Michael Ferguson is “calling in’’ the Droughty Point project, arguing that it is irresponsible for a council to block a development at a time of housing shortage. And the Master Builders, which has a vested interest in fuelling housing development, says the plan “is a perfect opportunity to build thousands of homes right on Hobart’s doorstep and take pressure off Hobart’s housing market”.

If only life were so simple.

Coincidentally, on the same day this newspaper reported on Mr Ferguson’s intervention, Tone Wheeler, president of the Australian Architecture Association, wrote an opinion piece in The Age that rightly pointed to the fact we should not be turning more land into suburbia, but focusing on infill development.

Wheeler observes: “We don’t need to swallow more land to build new houses. Rather, we should build infill housing in existing areas. These homes include granny flats, duplexes and triplexes, ‘low and close’ multi-dwellings on amalgamated sites or undeveloped land, and apartments or co-living projects such as shop-top housing within walking distance of public transport.”

There is a serious public health impact at issue here. A 2019 paper by Lucy Gunn and Belen Zapata-Diomedi from the RMIT Centre for Urban Research compared an inner suburban infill area in Melbourne with a new suburb a long way from the centre of the city. The result was that: “If adult residents living in the greenfield neighbourhood were instead exposed to the urban development form observed in a brownfield neighbourhood, the incidence and mortality of physical inactivity-related chronic diseases would decrease. Over the life course of the exposed population (21,000), we estimated 1600 health-adjusted life years gained and economic benefits of $94 million.”

This research pointed to the large body of analysis, particularly from Europe, which shows “that residents who live in more walkable, ie, cycle- and pedestrian-friendly neighbourhoods, have higher levels of physical activity principally through increased walking”.

The problem with new suburban developments is they encourage sedentary lifestyles because the car is the primary means of transport.

Infill development leads to greater social connectivity. As the American Planning Association observes: “Underutilised sites, such as unused parking lots in commercial corridors, vacant homes in residential areas, and vacant commercial spaces in town centres, can create negative impacts such as decreased community vibrancy, reduced perceptions of safety, and gaps in activity between existing destinations.”

So developing those spaces enhances existing urban and city neighbourhoods.

What are local governments doing in Tasmania about vacant land, empty buildings and unused parking lots?

Why are these spaces not the priority for new housing, rather than extending suburbia into areas such as Droughty Point? Or is it that timid councillors are too frightened of NIMBYism – the well-educated and often well-heeled types who do not like the idea of more housing in their established area?

One of the most adverse impacts of allowing suburban sprawl is in relation to work-life balance. As Perth architect Sandy Anghie, state president of the Australian Institute of Architects, observed recently, her colleagues are “very concerned about preventing long-term urban sprawl, which is severely impacting work-life balance, household budgets and the environment”.

Ask people who live in Hobart’s outer suburbs about these issues and you will find similar concerns expressed.

In other words, far from it being irresponsible for some members of the Clarence Council to reject the Skylands project, we should be grateful they did so. And the minister, Mr Ferguson, instead of giving the developers a leg-up should be making it clear the government’s preference is to encourage councils to look at infill building.

Yes, Tasmania has a moral and ethical responsibility to ensure housing for all who live here. But we also have similar obligations to ensure that housing is not stuck out in areas a long way from services, with inadequate or no public transport, and which adversely impacts work-life balance.

There is so much that can be done in terms of infill development.

We do not need to scar landscapes with quarter-acre blocks and what will be fast-ageing shopping areas and unkempt local parks.

Hobart barrister Greg Barns is a human rights lawyer who has advised state and federal Liberal governments.