Page 3450 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 23 September 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
These problems will not go away quickly, even if the government removes the solar access provisions. People are going to be stuck with these poorly designed houses forever. It is not the fault of the architects, it is not the fault of the builders, it is not the fault of the owners. The facts are these solar access rules have had many unintended consequences, and this government is too stubborn to do anything about it.
If you look at the new suburbs designed to comply with the solar access rules, many of the blocks do not allow houses to be positioned with a northern aspect. In fact, there are many houses that have to, in effect, face east or face west because of the way that variation 306 plays out.
The best example of this is the suburb of Moncrieff, a suburb in which pretty much no houses in the entire suburb face north. You pretty much have an entire suburb where every single house faces east or faces west. In most instances houses simply have a garage facing north and one front room, or the opposite—they have one or two back rooms which face north but not the long side of the house. There is little that can be done to fix the problems with these houses; however, to prevent more suburbs from becoming planning mistakes variation 306, especially the solar access provisions, needs to be repealed or considerably reworked.
Not only do the solar access rules lead to poor outcomes; they also add to the cost of building a home. It is expensive to excavate a block and home owners are often surprised by unexpected costs when problems arise. Glen Dowse pointed out that Molonglo residents pay an average of $100,000 more for a block than residents in Gungahlin. He also pointed out that it is becoming even more difficult to comply with the requirements of variation 306. This is not a good outcome for housing affordability, and it is a $100,000 premium but you can do less with your land.
The solar access rules are complicated. They have unintended consequences and they are yet another example of the government interfering for the worse in the construction industry. The new executive director of the MBA, Kirk Coningham, said:
Our government believes the investment in the solar envelope will be realised over the life of the house. Better, they say, to invest $20k to $50k now in site costs (ie: dig a hole to put your house in) to secure your neighbour’s sunshine. Or, if you prefer to live above ground, it’s better to sacrifice a room or two from your new home and require all of your neighbours to do the same.
The costs are huge yet they are imposed, with zero consideration for the broader consequences, because apparently they are “good for us”. Apparently we Canberrans don’t know what is good for us so it is incumbent upon the government to deliver planning “tough love”.
Mr Coningham is correct. Why can’t the government trust the planners, architects and builders to design and build energy efficient houses that provide access to sunlight?
The Canberra Liberals understand the impact of the solar access rules on homes and suburbs in the ACT and one only need look at the estate plan for Moncrieff to see just how diabolical variation 306 has been. We have what seems to be an entire suburb of energy inefficient homes, where the long sides of houses face east and they face west.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video