Cohousing Canberra

Submission on the ACT Government

Housing Choices Discussion Paper

Executive Summary

This submission is provided by Cohousing Canberra which is a group of Canberra residents who are seeking to facilitate the development of cohousing communities in our city.

Cohousing is an alternative housing model that is socially supportive, economically viable and environmentally sustainable. Its key features are:

● typically 20-30 separately-titled compact, energy efficient homes within jointly-

owned and managed grounds.

● Dwellings can be in the form of townhouses or apartments and generally have

grouped carparking on the periphery, shared gardens and a common area or

building which has a kitchen and dining area for shared meals and usually other

shared facilities.

● A safe and friendly space - the site is pedestrianised with centrally located common

facilities and gardens to encourage social interaction between residents.

● A strong sense of community - all residents participate in decision-making from

inception, design, and construction to building and grounds maintenance once

occupied. Resource sharing of household items and transport is encouraged.

We believe that the current ACT planning system needs to change to actively encourage more innovative forms of housing. Cohousing can make more effective use of existing suburban land while paying special attention to housing design to reduce its environmental and visual impact and to improve the well-being of its residents.

We would like cohousing to be an allowable land use in the RZ1 and RZ2 zones and for RZ2 boundaries to be reviewed to be more responsive to local conditions. Precincts should be designated that would be suitable for cohousing development. Block amalgamations and unit titling needs to be allowed in the RZ1 zone where cohousing is a suitable land use.

Existing blunt numeric controls over development on any particular block need replacing with simpler site coverage, building envelope and solar access controls for determining the scale of development and number of units. Parking requirements also need modifying to reduce extent of carparking and driveways within developments. Development applications for all multi-unit projects should be submitted to the ACT Government’s proposed Design Review Panel to improve the overall quality of housing in the ACT.

2

Introduction

This submission has been written by Cohousing Canberra, a relatively new group of Canberra residents who are seeking to facilitate the development of alternative housing models that are socially supportive, economically viable and environmentally sustainable. Our objective is to be both a resource and an advocacy group for such developments; assisting members to identify potential sites, establish legal and financial structures, develop the design and obtain planning approval, and to manage the building of their cohousing development.

We note that the Housing Choices website mentions that the Government wishes to establish Demonstration Housing Precincts that provide an opportunity to showcase innovative housing design and delivery and includes cohousing as one of the examples1. However the Discussion Paper makes no mention of how the ACT’s planning system could facilitate co-housing. This submission seeks to address this point. Cohousing Canberra also intends to submit an expression of interest for a demonstration cohousing project.

We believe that the current ACT planning system needs to change to actively encourage more innovative forms of housing, particularly cohousing. This submission first defines what is cohousing and its environmental and social benefits. Some examples of cohousing developments in other cities and overseas are provided. It then sets out what aspects of the ACT’s planning system would need to change to enable cohousing developments in Canberra.

What is Cohousing

Cohousing is an alternative housing model that is socially supportive, economically viable and environmentally sustainable. Cohousing originated in Denmark in the 1970s and has become a mainstream form of housing in Denmark (where cohousing forms 10% of new residential buildings), Germany and other European countries and is popular in the USA. There are fewer developments in Australia but a number of projects have been initiated in recent years (see next section).

Cohousing developments share a range of common features:

1 https://www.yoursay.act.gov.au/housing-choices

3

● Size: Co-housing developments typically range from 10 to 40 separately-titled

compact dwellings, with the ideal around 20-30 dwellings2, within jointly-owned and

managed grounds. Size can be site-dependent and is a factor of the need to balance

achieving economies of scale for housing affordability and the provision and

maintenance of common facilities with limiting the size of the development to

ensure personal connections between residents.

● Varied dwelling types: accommodating singles, families and elderly, with adaptable

designs to cater for residents with mobility issues and for ageing-in-place;

● Form: They can be in the form of townhouses or apartments and typically have

grouped carparking on the periphery, shared gardens and a common area or

building with kitchen and dining area for shared meals, social gatherings and

meetings; and possibly shared laundry facilities; workshop; art studio; children’s play

area; or accommodation for visitors.

● Environmentally sustainable (see later section)

● Resident mix: Cohousing developments accommodate residents of all ages and

backgrounds: both owners and renters.

● Affordable: compact, simple and efficient design with

practical and robust materials and fixtures.

● Community: pedestrian spine linking dwellings from

perimeter car parking to centrally located common facilities

and gardens to encourage social interaction. Resource sharing

is encouraged, e.g. clothes washing facilities, tools, car and

bike sharing;

● Process: future residents work with design professionals to

co-create a design that will meet their needs now and into the

future and their budgets. All residents participate in decision-

making from inception, design, and construction to buildings

and grounds maintenance once occupied.

● Location: ideally located in urban areas near major transport corridors and shopping

and commercial precincts to facilitate use of existing infrastructure, although some

cohousing developments have been built on city edges where land is more readily

available.

2 Note that the dwellings may contain different sized households, such as single persons, couples, families and

extended families.

4

Examples of Cohousing

Cohousing developments around the world number in the hundreds, and there are now many organisations promoting cohousing with guides and resource materials available. McCamant & Durrett Architects in the United States are one of the leading designers of Cohousing developments and have written extensively on the topic. Their website contains much detail on overseas projects3.

Australian precedents tend to be in rural locations, but suburban examples include: Christie Walk (Adelaide), Cascade (Hobart), Murundaka (Melbourne) and Pinakarri (Perth)4. There are some similarities between cohousing and the Nightingale developments that have been initiated in Melbourne in recent years, although Nightingale is more driven by the architects involved whereas cohousing developments are more resident-driven5.

In Canberra the closest form of cohousing we have are Urambi Village in Kambah and Wybalena Grove in Cook, both developed in the 1970s. Details of some of these examples are provided on the Australian Institute of Architects website - Housing Choice: Canberra6.

The schematic at Attachment A was submitted to Canberra’s NEAT (New Experimental Housing Typologies) competition in 2014. It illustrates some of the key cohousing design principles described above.

Cohousing versus the traditional development model

Cohousing does share similarities with traditional townhouse and apartment developments in the sense of residents having their own dwelling within a larger complex and being able to access common facilities and grounds. The legal ownership structure can follow the ACT Unit Titles legislation although some new ownership models are emerging overseas, e.g. ‘build to rent’ where the complex as a whole is owned by a trust in which residents hold shares and then gain long-term secure rental of their own dwelling in the complex.

3 http://www.cohousingco.com/home/ See also http://www.cohousing.org/ and https://cohousing.org.uk/

4This website contains some information on these examples http://www.communities.org.au/projects/list.

See also http://www.urbanecology.org.au/eco-cities/christie-walk/ 5 http://nightingalehousing.org/model

6 www.housingchoicecanberra.architecture.com.au

5

The major difference from the traditional development model is that a cohousing community is initiated, designed and managed by its residents, and not initiated by a speculative developer who sells off the units for profit. This is described in more detail in the following table.

Table 1 - Cohousing versus traditional development

Cohousing Traditional development model

Co-design – future residents work with design professionals to co-create a design that will meet their needs now and into the future and their budgets. This model allows people to meet their housing needs over time with people who have intentionally come together to share this style of community.

Future residents not yet known or consulted. Development designed around profit maximisation not people’s needs. Designers briefed by developers on what they think is saleable. Buildings often poorly designed and poorly built. Size of development maximised to whatever planning rules allows with little thought to how it is integrated with surrounding neighbourhood.

Design is low or zero net emissions – cohousing usually attracts people interested in creating an environmentally kind development and may involve reduced residence sizes, sustainable technologies, alternative transport options, organic recycling, food growing. Development is located close to public transport routes and shared paths and close to major shopping centres and facilities.

Designs usually meet minimum environmental standards only and in general there is little innovation and aspiration. Developer tries to minimise construction cost to increase profit margin on sales so does not consider long term savings to residents from having a more energy efficient design.

Includes common spaces and resource sharing like a kitchen/dining room for sharing of meals, laundries and food gardens and bike and workshops/sheds. May include electric car shares and bike shares. Buildings and grounds maintenance is organised and undertaken by the residents

Emphasis on individual residences and shared landscape features like pools/bbq areas, or rooftop gardens for more upmarket developments. Shared food gardens uncommon. Building and ground maintenance outsourced by body corporate.

People-centric design – pedestrians are prioritised with a central pedestrian spine - cars are relegated to the periphery. Provision is made for bicycle sheds and bicycle parking. Due to less space devoted to cars, more room is provided for growing plants – trees, shrubs, groundcovers and food growing plants.

Due to current ACT Government regulations that stipulate the number of cars per dwelling and where carparking can be located, new developments tend to include large areas of impermeable & heat absorbing driveways and parking areas. Very few areas left for landscape plantings. Few developments provide practical bike storage.

Multi-generational – people of all ages encouraged to live in the cohousing development. These types of developments allow people to age in place with the support of other residents.

Resident mix determined by the market – whoever decides to buy/rent into the development is unlikely to know what sort of community exists there.

6

More affordable dwellings overall and potential for inclusion of social housing. Development costs reduced through more compact dwellings (e.g. not including a laundry), sharing of common facilities and less space devoted to cars. Marketing costs and developer profit margin can also be minimised. Energy efficient design means that energy costs are cheaper over time.

Dwelling prices set at whatever the market can bear. Developments may include a proportion of affordable dwellings dependent upon government regulations and the size of the development.

Environmental Benefits of Cohousing

The Housing Choices Discussion Paper only discusses the environmental impact of housing in terms of climate change and the need to achieve net zero carbon emissions across the Territory. While this is essential, the government also needs to recognise that housing has other environment impacts that need to be addressed, such as water and resource use, waste generation, and loss of biodiversity through suburban development.

Despite its focus on climate change, the paper does not mention that once the ACT achieves its target of 100% renewable electricity by 2020, transport then becomes the biggest contributor to ACT emissions, accounting for 62% of emissions by 2020.7 It is thus imperative that new residential development be designed not just to reduce carbon emissions from building use but also to minimise the need for motorised transport to employment, commercial and recreational destinations.

Cohousing communities are ideally placed to assist in achieving the ACT's environmental objectives as they naturally tend to have a strong environmental focus at both the design and operational stages.

Site planning is often directed at achieving a compact, solar-oriented building form and efficient, innovative land use where driveways and garages are minimised through colocation around the edge of the site. Sites are designed to give priority to pedestrian movement and opportunities for informal social interaction.

At the construction stage, cohousing residents have often used their combined resources to incorporate strong environmental features and materials into their houses as economies of scale allow residents to buy more expensive environmental systems such as photovoltaic

7 ACT’s Climate Strategy To A Net Zero Emissions Territory - Discussion Paper, December 2017

7

panels and batteries and water recycling and treatment systems.

Once the development is occupied, cohousing residents have found that being part of an intentional community makes it easier for them to reduce their impact on the environment by: making it easier to share often under-utilised items such as washing machines, garden equipment and tools; sharing car trips, sharing produce from jointly created vegetable gardens, and recycling of no-longer required items and materials within the community.

Cohousing developments usually incorporate high environmental standards in their design, construction and operation. This includes where possible:

● minimising embodied energy and ecological impact in the building's materials and construction;

● minimising the operating energy and carbon emissions over the building's life time through energy efficiency and use of renewable energy;

● using low environmental impact and recycled resources in the construction;

● minimising water use and the creation of waste and emissions in construction and operation;

● minimising the impact of the building construction and operation on local ecosystems;

● placing a priority on the comfort and health of its residents through age-adaptable and energy efficient building design and the use of nontoxic building materials;

● reducing impact on the wider systems serving the building e.g. transport, water supply.

● striving to be as innovative as possible while also wanting to demonstrate that such approaches are cost-effective through use where appropriate of readily-available materials and proven construction techniques that can be repeated by others.

Some specific environmental features are described below.

Building design Buildings within the development will incorporate passive solar design to ensure comfortable internal temperatures all year round with minimal need for heating and cooling, thus reducing dependence on external energy sources and minimising the impact of the expected more extreme weather under climate change. The current 6 star

8

minimum energy efficiency standard for new housing is outdated and inadequate for addressing the challenges of climate change. With a combination of compact dwellings, good thermal design (around 8 star), energy efficient equipment (lighting, water heating) and kitchen appliances, and solar panels for renewable energy it should be economically cost-effective to achieve a net zero emission housing development.8

Transport To minimise dependence on private fossil-fuelled transport, the development will ideally have easy access to local facilities such as shops and recreational areas, public transport and cycle paths. Car sharing will be encouraged, e.g. through organised rostering of trips by residents to common destinations, to minimise the need for car ownership and space devoted to car parking. The common facilities could also include some office and studio space for residents who wish to work from home, reducing the need for travel.

Water Water saving technologies will be incorporated into the design of all buildings. Rainwater will be collected and used on-site. permeable surfaces used for driveways and paving, and greywater treated and reused where practicable, to reduce dependence on the external water-supply and to minimise production of waste water and stormwater runoff.

Waste The amount of waste needing off-site disposal by a cohousing development should be less than a similarly sized conventional development as there is greater scope for residents to cooperate in reuse and recycling of no-longer required items and materials within the community.

Landscaping Vegetation helps keep buildings cooler in summer and helps reduce impact of climate change and

the urban heat island effect. Landscaping of the site will place a priority on producing food, promoting biodiversity through use of local native species, diverse plant selection and encouraging birds and other wildlife. Protection of existing significant trees will also be sought.

Social benefits of cohousing

These days, the relationship between housing on the one hand, and mental health and well-being on the other, is widely acknowledged. Cohousing can make a positive contribution to mental health and well-being.

Most of the research on the effect of cohousing on health has been done on cohousing for older people. Studies of Dutch and Danish senior cohousing communities find that the outcomes of living in cohousing “can be an enhanced sense of well-being, reduction of loneliness and isolation, continued activity and engagement, the possibility of staying

8 see for example the research undertaken on the Lochiel Park estate in Adelaide

http://www.unisa.edu.au/lochiel-park

9

healthier for longer and, finally, continued personal autonomy and independence.”9 (Brenton, 2010)

For example, a study of a Danish housing association before, and then 10 years after, people joined a cohousing community found that there was a very marked reduction in loneliness (85% to 10%). Not only this, but there was a dramatic reduction in service use. Before moving in, 70% of residents had needed help for small repair jobs, shopping and so on; afterwards none needed this.

Cohousing encourages social relatedness; a large body of research into social relatedness and its health impact has found it is associated with a 50% better survival rate.

The Marmot Strategic Review of Health Inequalities (2010)10 noted that “the extent of people’s participation in their communities and the added control over their lives that this brings has the potential to contribute to their psychosocial well-being and, as a result, to other health outcomes.” (Page 30)

The co-design process involved in planning the community, participative decision-making throughout the life of the community and resident participation in gardening, landscaping and other activities can all contribute to a sense of control in cohousing residents.

In a number of countries, such as Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands, governments have actively encouraged the development of senior cohousing communities because they keep people healthier and happier for longer and contribute to lower levels of demand on expensive health and social care services.

In Australia, the Institute of Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology Sydney recently completed a literature review of Cohousing for Seniors which discusses key demographic and social trends in ageing and seniors housing in Australia. It then considers the characteristics of cohousing, and how and why it might be a suitable alternative housing model for senior Australians.11

9 Maria Brenton: Potential Benefits of Cohousing for Older People: a literature review for the Nesta

Foundation 10

https://www.gov.uk/dfid-research-outputs/fair-society-healthy-lives-the-marmot-review-strategic-review-

of-health-inequalities-in-england-post-2010 11

https://www.uts.edu.au/sites/default/files/article/downloads/Cohousing%20for%20Seniors_Lit%20Review.pdf

10

For many people, particularly baby-boomers, moving into standard residential developments for the aged run by churches or for-profit groups is not a desirable option, because of the paternalism or even outright exploitation such developments entail and the lack of residents’ ability to control basic aspects of their living environments. Senior cohousing provides a welcome alternative to traditional retirement villages due to its mental health benefits as well as resulting in lower service use.

Why cohousing is needed in Canberra

The Housing Choices Discussion Paper acknowledges that there is significant demand for more diverse housing forms in Canberra’s RZ1 suburban zone which occupies over 80% of urban land. The paper also notes that Canberra is one of the fastest ageing capital cities in Australia. A significant number of baby boomers who are now retiring would like to relocate within their established neighbourhood into more appropriate housing, but currently the range of alternative housing options is limited.

The paper also acknowledges that the traditional household structure of the nuclear family is changing and that there is a need to cater for an increasing diversity of households. A greater variety of housing types within the RZ1 zone could provide both younger and older people with opportunities to live close to their social support networks in potentially more affordable housing. There is also the economic benefit that if there was a greater range of options for empty nesters to downsize then their larger houses may be freed up in established areas for growing families.

On the other hand, we acknowledge that there is also a desire by many of the residents in existing suburban areas to retain its low-rise, detached housing and leafy character. Our proposed cohousing model is an ideal response to these often incompatible objectives. Cohousing can make more effective use of existing suburban land while paying special attention to the design of new developments to reduce their environmental and visual impact compared to the knockdown-rebuild ‘mcmansions’ that are springing up across the established suburbs.

The Mr Fluffy blocks have established a precedent for increased housing diversity and density in the RZ1 zone but many of the developments will remain unpopular with neighbours as developers are seeking to capitalise on the higher plot ratios allowed by creating (often poorly orientated) dual street frontages. Creation of cohousing communities through amalgamating blocks and optimising development provide a much better approach to urban renewal.

11

The cohousing model is also suitable for the denser RZ2, RZ3 and RZ4 zones to provide more housing diversity close to commercial centres and public transport routes, compared to current townhouse and apartment developments that are often targeted at the investment/rental market.

Changes required to existing planning rules

This section lists some of the current planning rules which are a barrier to the development

of cohousing in Canberra, and ways of changing them that will facilitate cohousing. It is by

no means exhaustive, but it does illustrate the type of problems faced by innovative

developments other than the typical detached house on a suburban block or an apartment

building in the urban zones.

Allowed developments in residential zones

● Cohousing precincts: designate precincts within the RZ1 Zone across Canberra (or add new RZ2 Zone areas), identifying sites deemed suitable for cohousing development (adjoining parkland, transport corridors, etc.).

● Consider cohousing to be an Integrated Housing Development which is permitted in the RZ1 Zone (refer to the Residential Zones Development Code).

● Expand the definition of ‘Supportive Housing’, which is a permitted residential use in the RZ1 Zone (Refer to the Residential Zones Development Code), to include cohousing.

● Review of RZ2 zones: the arbitrary boundaries (set in 2003) of 200 and 300 metres around local shops needs to be reviewed. A precinct planning approach would be more fine grained and take into account the variety of local conditions (transport corridors, available facilities, block size, topography, etc.) in each suburb.

● Allow block subdivision into apartments in RZ2 zones as well as the current allowed townhouse/terrace subdivision.

● Permit unit titles for multiple dwellings on one block in any part of RZ1.

● Relax redevelopment restrictions on extra large RZ1 blocks to allow triple and quad occupancies.

● Allow blocks in RZ1 to be amalgamated and multiple dwellings to be constructed on the enlarged site.

Design Controls

● Site coverage, building envelope and solar access controls could replace all other numeric controls on the scale of development and number of units on any particular

12

block. This will result in better forms of development which include sufficient open space for deep rooted trees (currently absent from much of Canberra’s newer suburbs).

● Allow basements and attics in addition to 2 stories in RZ1-3; allow 3 stories subject to neighbourhood values being maintained (ie buildings do not overlook neighbours’ private spaces, or block sunlight for others’ gardens).

● Reduce minimum dwelling sizes on single blocks to allow for ‘tiny houses’ and micro-apartments.

● Change general requirements around parking (number of car spaces per dwelling) and vehicle access to reduce extent of driveways. Allow verges to be used for car parking provided it does not interfere with street trees.

● Relax on-site waste collection requirements for cohousing developments where residents are committed to jointly minimising the amount of waste needing to be collected.

Design review

● Refer development applications for all multi-unit projects to the ACT Government’s proposed Design Review Panel.

● Set up a system of accreditation and quality control for registered private certifiers to assist with the work of ACTPLA and improve compliance with planning and building regulations.

Incentives

● Reduce lease variation charges and stamp duty on urban infill projects which are initiated by not-for-profit, resident-managed organisations.

13

Attachment A - concept design for a cohousing development