ECM_3579589_v1_The contrast of small lot housing vs. community ...

The contrast of small lot housing vs. community desire for rural residential lots in regional areas By Matthew Kelly Gladstone Regional Council Development Services Department Planning Services Section

0 Document Set ID: 3579589 Version: 1, Version Date: 14/10/2016

Abstract The role of Local Government Planners in a regional context is often a dichotomy between the application of 'urban' planning initiatives being rolled out from higher levels of Government and the reality of the local community appetite for such initiatives. This is further complicated by the balance between land affordability and the regional lifestyle ideals. The Gladstone Region has specifically experienced a rise small lot housing which was introduced in late 2010 through the Economic Development Queensland (formerly Urban Land Development Authority) ULDA frameworks over two separate 'urban development areas', as well as several commercial proponents also seeking to produce this type of product. The key intent of these types of lots was affordability, particularly in a time when the region was experiencing enormous housing pressure given the concurrent construction of several large industrial projects. The Gladstone Priority Development Area was the first to be declared outside of South East Queensland. The then ULDA transplanted inner city small lot housing concepts into a regional area, where lots of this size were not even contemplated by the Planning Scheme. This 'we'll show them how it's done' approach lacked the true understanding of the regional constraints of public transport, access and even climatic factors. Council, and the community, is now ultimately left with the estate and its assets, for better or worse. This is juxtaposed with the longer standing community desire for peri-urban rural residential lots within 20-30km from Gladstone City itself. This appetite has been particularly constant within the region for some time, with rural residential lots being brought to market consistently before, during and after the recent 'boom' period. However, providing and maintaining infrastructure to these types of lots is particularly expensive for Council, as well as being extremely land intensive in relatively close proximity to the 'true' urban footprint. Both development types serve different purposes and appeal to a different demographics within the community. Both development types can work within regional areas. What is of importance is the location and design of these types of developments in relation to both the major urban centre and the region specific characteristics of the community. This masterclass will further investigate the costs in providing both development types while investigating the discourse between lifestyle ideals and affordability, and under what instances both lot types can coexist successfully in a regional context.


Introduction Outside of the South East Queensland conurbation exists a plethora of centres and townships which characterise Regional Queensland. Whilst their historical establishments vary and their communities identify with different lifestyles and social attitudes, their patterns of development and growth management have largely been delivered through Local Government Planning Schemes (Maginn and Thompson, 2012). These Planning Schemes, which often change by reflecting new and improved planning practices and philosophies, almost always reflect the future growth aspirations of its residents. An example has led to the exponential growth and delivery of rural residential development or peri-urban lots. These lots, embraced by the community for their ability to provide an alternative 'lifestyle choice' as opposed to traditional 8oosq m lots or higher density developments are however, plagued with long term management issues. In contrast, in 2007 the creation of the former ULDA now Economic Development Queensland (EDQ) saw the role of the developer and assessing authority shift to the State. These projects, often in the form of major housing estates aimed at improving housing affordability, came at a time where many regional centres were experiencing significant housing shortages as a result of unprecedented growth of the resource sectors such as the city of Gladstone (Queensland State Government, 2013). Notwithstanding this, the delivery of these estates were often based on city planning ideologies whereby public transport, major employment centres and recreational facilities are readily available, have resulted in 'out of sync' and congested neighbourhoods, which poorly reflect the realities of regional Queenslanders and their lifestyle choices. This paper intends to illustrate the difficulties in succumbing to 'lifestyle choices' through unsustainable rural residential development and managing the realities of large scale small lot housing estates along with housing affordability, using Gladstone as an example. The paper concludes by highlighting the need to implement new planning practices which integrate regional lifestyle ideals, affordability and city planning practices for the multitude of regional centres within Queensland.

Understanding the Regions, Lifestyle Choice and Housing Affordability As Australia's most decentralised state with the strongest regional network (Queensland State Government, 2014), Queensland's regions can often be described as one or two mid-sized centres surrounded by several smaller communities within a substantial geographic area (10,000sq km+) (Queensland State Government, 2014). Populations within these centres vary between 1,000 180,000 with regional Queensland hosting seven out of the 50 largest cities in Australia (Queensland State Government, 2014). Together these townships are generally significantly isolated from the next neighbouring region by some 100+ kilometres, however are often serviced by major 2 Document Set ID: 3579589 Version: 1, Version Date: 14/10/2016

federal/state highways, ports and airports both domestic and international. The geographic and environmental surroundings can range from inland grazing plains, complex coastal environs, green tablelands/hinterland with landscapes varying significantly. Regional Queensland is often driven by niche industries including mining/manufacturing, tourism and agriculture which provides for unique skillsets for which these industries can be expanded into the future (Queensland State Government, 2014). Given the varied geographic, economic and political values within these regions, the communities often differ with lifestyle preferences, significantly influencing their housing choices. Whilst there is no 'one size fits all' to describe the lifestyle preferences and choices of regional Queenslanders, on the ground and anecdotal evidence suggests that residents are more likely to live in a detached Dwelling House with more than one privately owned vehicle by the household (Queensland State Government, 2012). Regional Queenslanders are more likely to own a larger vehicle being a SUV or utility as opposed to a smaller passenger vehicle and are more likely to own a boat, trailer or camper van (Queensland State Government, 2012). Given the ownership of multiple passenger vehicles and other transport related products and the preference for detached Dwelling Houses, housing choice has tended to preference traditional 'subdivision patterns'. With tropical climatic characteristics, the desire for outdoor living and entertaining areas has also remained a strong desire for residents. Whilst Multiple Dwellings have seen an increase in many city centres, these have often resulted from Council driven urban revitalisation strategies as evident within Gladstone, Rockhampton, Mackay and Townsville. However whilst community desire has maintained traditional housing products, ensuring these are provided in an affordable manner still remains a priority and obstacle to achieve. For the purpose of measuring affordability, Quigley and Raphael (2004) use the '30 per cent rule' whereby if housing costs (rent/mortgage) exceed more than 30 per cent of the household income, then the household is considered as experiencing 'housing stress'. In understanding this rule, Quigley and Raphael as well as Yates (2008) note that other external variables impacting housing affordability include interest rates, job security, wage security and changing social attitudes to homeownership, especially with Generation Y and Z moving away from being owner occupiers. Whilst the development industry and planners are unable to directly respond to these influences, the requirement to ensure the timely release of land and robust planning frameworks lays at the forefront of the discipline to ensure sustainable and affordable residential products. These products, whilst aimed at providing housing affordability, can in some instances, result in poor urban planning outcomes such as the occurrences of large small lot housing estates in comparably unserviced areas.


Small Lot Housing and Economic Development Queensland With the formalisation of the planning profession and the creation of modern Planning Schemes, the traditional lot size for land within the Residential Zone has ranged between 700-800sq m in regional Queensland (Maginn and Thompson, 2012). This minimum has often been a result of the historic subdivision pattern and maintaining 'rural' lifestyle choices (Maginn and Thompson, 2012). These lot sizes have remained until recent times whereby the complexities of multi-faceted zoning has created further segregation of built form and similarly lot sizes. This is especially true for Planning Schemes drafted under the current Queensland Planning Provision (QPP) where multitudes of zoning options, Precincts and Local Plans are available (Queensland State Government, 2016). Furthermore, increased land values, improving housing affordability and in some instances achieving urban renewal/gentrification in older suburbs has seen lot sizes drop. As a direct result to achieving greater housing affordability and in an attempt to reduce urban sprawl and consolidate urban development (Queensland Government, 2012), the phenomenon of small lots and small lot housing has emerged across the Queensland planning profession as one of the prevailing solutions. Yet with 103 Queensland Local Government Planning Schemes in existence, a unified definition for small lots remains outstanding for which planners, proponents and the community are yet to grapple with. Upon review, only the Brisbane and Gold Coast City Plans include Small Lots as a formal definition being lots under 450sq m (Brisbane) and 400sq m (Gold Coast) (Brisbane City Council, 2014 and Gold Coast City Council, 2016). The existence of such a definition only within these Planning Schemes also should be highlighted, given these Local Government Areas form the largest and most urbanised areas within the state of Queensland as opposed to the their less urbanised neighbours. Whilst some Local Governments including those outside of South-East Queensland support lots under 400sq m, these are undefined and generally tied to zoning characteristics or performance planning approaches, leaving interpretations ambiguous. Furthermore, as no definition or rationale is provided with respect to Small Lot Housing across the state, the explanation and delivery of such a product remains up to the interpretation of Local Governments and proponents in ensuring contemporary planning outcomes are delivered for this undefined housing product. EDQ (formerly known as the ULDA) was originally formed in 2007 under the Urban Land Development Authority Act 2007 as a statutory authority responsible for plan making, development assessment and in many cases development manager (Urban Land Development Authority, 2013). Of the 17 Urban Development Areas (UDAs) declared across the State during the late 2000s, seven major residential projects were identified across regional areas including Blackwater, Gladstone (three UDAs), Moranbah, Roma and Townsville, all of which were at the time, subject to 4 Document Set ID: 3579589 Version: 1, Version Date: 14/10/2016

unprecedented growth pressures as a result of the resource boom (Urban Land Development Authority, 2013). Whilst the drafting of the Development Schemes included some consultation with Local Governments and the community, the final plans of development have resulted in minimum and average lot sizes far below that of the applicable Local Government Planning Scheme, but also that of Queensland's major urban cities of Brisbane and Gold Coast. Figure 1 provides an illustration of the existing EDQ estates within regional Queensland and the current lot configurations as per September 2016.

Figure 1: Lot configurations within EDQ estates in regional Queensland (Queensland Government 2016)

Given the clear disparity between the generally accepted minimum lot size of 800-600sq m within regional Planning Schemes and the minimum lot size of 112sq m in some EDQ estates, the delivery of these estates in their 'saturated' form represents a clear step away from traditional lot configurations. Whilst this may be the case, the long term management and use of these lots and smaller Dwellings have resulted in a stream of issues for which Local Governments are left responsible for. In the instance of Hillclose Estate, Gladstone, the development experienced the following problems upon the delivery of Stages 1 and 2. These include: 

An increase of unanticipated densities in an area generally unserviced by major transport, employment and recreational services, creating an isolated community.



The State entering the housing market with a non-traditional product at a time of immense housing stress caused by the construction of three Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) refineries; 5

Document Set ID: 3579589 Version: 1, Version Date: 14/10/2016



Significantly reduced road pavement widths making navigation and access difficult especially for larger SUV/4WD owners and owners with boats, trailers and camper vans (see Figure 2);



A substantial number of Dwelling Houses with single bay undersized garages to house a larger SUV/4WD and often second vehicle. This has resulted in an abundance of vehicles parked across the verge and road pavement, creating greater congestion with already undersized pavements and reducing pedestrian accessibility in some instances (see Figure 2);



Lack of private outdoor space has resulted in many occupants utilising garages as pseudo entertaining/living areas and has also resulted in private vehicles being located across the verge and road reserve; and



Refuse waste contractors regularly being unable to service the development due to access and traffic congestion as a result of the undersupply of private and public vehicle parking areas.

Figure 2: Larger vehicles and boats/trailers unable to be appropriately housed

As the problem of small lot housing continues to raise questions about its appropriateness within regional Queensland, planners are also tasked with managing the impacts of rural residential development, a product which has long been embraced by regional communities.

Rural Residential Development Here to Stay Rural Residential development can be described as peri-urban residential development within servicing catchments and in nearby proximity to urban centres (Sinclair et al, 2004). This development is often serviced by reticulated water and in some instances also sewer with lots ranging between 4,000sq m to one hectare in size (Sinclair et al, 2004). The larger product, sometimes referred to as 'rural living development' is a residential use of land within a rural environment not near an urban centre or serviced, with lots generally two hectares or larger 6 Document Set ID: 3579589 Version: 1, Version Date: 14/10/2016

(Sinclair et al, 2004). As per Sinclair et al, the common point of difference between urban housing and Rural Residential/Rural Living Development is the size of lots and distances between Dwellings, which creates a sense of 'openness'. Bunker et al also details that given the size of lots and Dwelling Houses, often a number of these are used by owners as their place of business, especially for tradespeople and professionals in single practitioner consultancies who run home offices (Bunker et al, 2003). In the Gladstone Region, Rural Residential development has occurred across all major townships including Gladstone, Calliope, Tannum Sands and Agnes Water with existing developments under construction. This development provided through the transition of rural land to rural residential through an unplanned approach, has result in the limitation for future growth opportunities of these areas, especially that for Western Calliope and Gladstone where future urban growth is being encouraged as opposed to peri-urban. This development has also resulted in the extensive sterilisation of former grazing lands and the clearing of native vegetation. With the continuation of this relatively unplanned peri-urban development, the lack of effective implementation through regulatory framework has resulted in an abundance of issues, both for Local Governments as an essential service provider and also for achieving long term sustainability of our regional centres. In the context of the Gladstone region, the prevailing issues that have arisen from unplanned rural residential development includes: 

Large consumption of land required for a small delivery of lots as opposed to urban residential development, where greater yields are provided delivering greater sustainability (Figure 3);



Constraints on logical urban expansion in response to population growth requirements and the inability to provide future infill opportunities;



Isolation from commercial/employment centres and social infrastructure including parklands and open space;



Increased reliance on private vehicle ownership with little or no provision made for public transport, pedestrian and cycle infrastructure (Figure 3);



Increased exposure and risks to people and property from natural hazards including flood and bushfire;



The long term maintenance costs on water (pump stations) and road infrastructure far exceeds urban areas due to large carriageway widths and pipe lengths/capacity (Figure 3);



The recouping of costs associated with the above is often limited, given the small number of lots delivered;



Some land owners have inappropriate perceptions of land use rights given larger lot sizes;




Significant loss in native vegetation cover and loss of Good Quality Agricultural Land (GAQL) for grazing and agricultural purposes; and



Increases in domestic feral animal populations correlated to decreases in native fauna numbers.

Figure 3: Large land consumptive developments with large carriageways used only for private vehicles

The continued delivery of rural residential development remains an ongoing issue especially for maintaining clear growth boundaries in many parts of regional Queensland. However with community demand remaining high and land availability less of an issue than South-East Queensland, the continuation of this residential product seems unavoidable irrespective of the short and long term impacts. Along with the emergence of small lot housing, questions have risen for regional planners as to how future planning frameworks and policies should respond to these products. How do planners ensure beneficial social and sustainable outcomes are achieved, and how to ensure that these can coexist to form strong and resilient communities?

The Coexistence of Big and Small With the need to provide for sustainable communities, regional planners are tasked to ensure that current and future policy allows for a range of housing options. These options are to be integrated into the existing and future urban fabric in a manner which addresses housing affordability and lifestyle choice. Whilst the existing literature provides an abundance of information on infill development possibilities within existing urban centres and neighbourhoods (in particular metropolitan cities), the literature fails to provide planners the guidance as to how to balance and integrate urban and peri-urban residential development. Planners are also left to their own devices in ensuring issues relating to small lots are delivered appropriately, as the literature focuses generally on 'city centric' planning as opposed to the regions, in particular regional Queensland.


In the case of Hillclose, Gladstone, it is clear through both on the ground and anecdotal evidence that the establishment of a largescale residential estate with an average lot size of 355sq m and undersized carriageways has resulted in high levels of traffic congestion. Adverse amenity impacts have also been created by a saturation of private vehicles being unable to be housed within Dwelling Houses due to undersized garage bays. Whilst it is noted that Dwelling Houses were compliant with the National Construction Code (NCC), the failure to value add to the sizes of garage bay has been a considerable problem for the existing Dwellings within the Hillclose Estate. To ensure these issues are avoided in the future, the increase of pavement and carriageway widths should reflect the applicable Local Government standards to avoid narrow roads and traffic congestion at major intersections. Furthermore, with Dwellings often provided with single undersized garage bays and owners often having more than one vehicle, future policy recommendations should ensure that Dwelling Houses provided with larger garage bays to accommodate larger SUV vehicles. Future policy recommendations should also ensure that garage setbacks for all Dwellings allow for tandem vehicle parking for secondary vehicles clear of the road reserve. The provision of visitor parking bays located across the Estate and possibly. The provision of a communal storage facility for boats, trailers, motorbikes, campervans and the like, given the lack of private storage areas and side access should be considered. Recommendations for the increase in a variety of lot sizes to cater for a range of lifestyle choices and stages of the lifecycle from first home buyers, empty nesters and retired residents will allow greater resilience in these estates, and also a greater representation of residents living together. It is also recommended that where possible, the delivery of smaller lots occurs predominately within existing traditional neighbourhoods where existing infrastructure is available and employment and recreational facilities are more readily accessible. By supporting further increases in densities within established areas and reducing higher density residential estates in the outer urban areas of the region, the reduction on private vehicle transport, increase in active transport (walking and cycling) and greater utilisation of existing infrastructure will be achieved, reducing Local Government expenditure. In managing the expansion of rural residential development, in particular Gladstone, evidence suggests that the protection of Good Quality Agricultural Land and grazing land should remain a priority to avoid sterilisation (Gibson et al, 2006). Furthermore, the continuation of broad hectare clearing of vegetation and removal of habitat should also be significantly reduced with a more integrated approach undertaken by proponents focusing on cohabitation and ensuring habitat remains in addition to the requirements for services and Dwelling House footprints. To ensure that these environmental impacts are mitigated, recommendations for the delivery of clear and concise planning policy which focuses on reduced localised vegetation clearing and greater integration of


environmental values, essential services and Dwelling House envelopes should be investigated and ultimately implemented. To ensure greater connectivity and a range of transport modes are provided for, provision for bus, cycle and pedestrian access should be encouraged, and most importantly, integrated into the greater transport networks. This will contribute to decreased reliance on private vehicles, reduce social and physical isolation between urban and peri urban communities and allow for greater public transport uptake within regional communities. Given the lack of guidance provided by the existing planning literature with respect to how to manage the interface/retrofitting of urban and peri urban development, it is recommended that further research and investigation be undertaken to provide appropriate options/infill development opportunities in instances where future development potential is constrained. Providing these answers will ensure that greater sustainability is maintained, existing infrastructure is utilised and urban sprawl is avoided. As a result of the lack of available literature relating to integrating rural residential development and small lots within a regional context, questions remain as to how to achieve better planning outcomes for the long-term. If regional communities want current and future housing to achieve a balance between affordability and lifestyle choice, and planners seek sustainable development that does not constrain the infrastructure system, further research into achieving these outcomes is required. If small lot housing is the preferred method of infill development, should this preference remain as standalone product produced across a mass estate, or should this be incorporated into the existing built form and should rural residential development remain? How will this product achieve sustainability given the requirement for mass land consumption? The coexistence of big and small will remain an issue for planners to juggle, however with further research and a better understanding of regional communities, these issues may well be addressed.

Conclusion The management of balancing lifestyle choice for residential lots, housing affordability and delivering new planning initiatives such as small lot housing within regional areas remains an ongoing challenge for local government planners. The historic delivery of rural residential development continues to result in adverse environmental impacts, especially the sterilisation of Good Quality Agricultural Land, unsustainable financial burdens on essential service providers and difficulty in defining definitive growth boundaries for Local Governments. Alternatively the small lot housing scenario illustrates a housing product which does not meet all user requirements, especially where small lots form the majority of the housing choice within a particular estate. These issues were further compounded by State departments in an attempt to address housing


affordability, with limited community or Local Government consultation at a time where unimaginable housing stress was created by the growth of resource sectors. Given these matters are yet to be formally addressed within the planning literature, it is clear that greater attention needs to paid to balancing housing affordability, creating planning outcomes that achieve the desired lifestyle choices and retrofitting contemporary city planning theory into regional Queensland Planning Schemes. Should planners and the community find a way to integrate these elements into future policies, future development may contribute to delivering a more sustainable and prosperous regional Queensland for all.

Bibliography Brisbane City Council . Brisbane City Plan 2014. Planning Scheme, Brisbane : Brisbane City Council , 2014. Bunker R, Holloway D and Sinclair I. Growth Management and Rural Land. Univeristy Presentation, Sydney : University of NSW Planning Law and Practice Short Course, 2003. Gibson, C, Duffy, R and Drozdewski, D. “Resident Attitudes to Farmland Protection Measures in the Northern Rivers Region, New South Wales.” Australian Geographer, 2006: 396-383. Gold Coast City Council. Gold Coast City Plan 2016. Planning Scheme, Nerang: Gold Coast Council , 2016. Maginn, J and Thompson S. Planning Australia. Cambrige: Cambrige University Press, 2012. Queensland Government. Hosuing innovations . Government , Brisbane: Urban Land Development Authority , 2012. Queensland State Government. How Queensland Travels . Government Report, Brisbane: Queensland State Government, 2012. Queensland State Government. Queensland Planning Provisions Version 4.0. Government Report, Brisbane: Queensland State Government, 2016 . Queensland State Government. Regional and Resource Towns Action Plan . Government Report, Brisbane : Queensland State Government , 2013. Queensland State Government. The Queensland Plan . Government Report , Brisbane : The Queensland State Government, 2014. Quigley, J and Raphael, S. “Is Housing Unaffordable? Why isn't it More Affordable?” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2004: 191-214. Sinclar, Dockubg, Jarecki, Parker and Sville. From the Ouytside Looking In the Future of Sydney's Rural Land. Univeristy Report, Sydney : University of Western Sydeny , 2004. Urban Land Development Authoirty . Final Report 1 July 2011 - 31 January 2013. Government Report, Brisbane: Urban Land Development Authority , 2013.


Yates, Judith. “Policy Forum: Housing Affordability: What are the Policy Issues?” The Australian Economic Review Vol 41, 2008: 200-2014.
