Canberrans are concerned by how good outcomes would be defined under a proposed new planning system but there is a broad level of support for allowing more dual occupancies, a report to the ACT government has said.
The government has been warned the community is highly uncertain how the proposed new planning system would deliver effective outcomes.
"There was misunderstanding and a range of feedback on how the various components of the proposed new planning system work together, and in general it was not felt that the reforms had met the task of making the planning system easier to understand and engage with," the report said.
The listening report was based on an extensive planning system reform consultation period and 7600 pieces of feedback, prepared by consultants Communication Link, and published by the ACT government on Tuesday.
Community consultation revealed concern how the proposed outcomes-based system would interact with appeal rights and how good outcomes would be defined and assessed.
More than 90 per cent of respondents to a government survey said they were unsure how the new system would deliver good outcomes.
The report said among feedback that supported greater urban intensification, the chance to improve housing affordability
"Almost a quarter of feedback on proposed increased density suggested that urban infill strategies were appropriate in some instances, but provided suggestions on how that density should be delivered," the report said.
Suggestions included alternative infill sites, rules to protect the "character" in existing suburbs, and requirements to deliver enough car parking to avoid the need for residents to park on the streets.
The report said 71 per cent of 134 respondents to a government survey were in favour of allowing more dual occupancy developments in existing suburbs.
Opponents to greater urban intensification noted concerns about the changing character of suburbs, decreased amenity and stress to existing infrastructure and services, the report said.
"Many respondents felt that their districts had already borne their share of urban densification, or that there were already enough 'high rise' in Canberra, such as in Woden," the report said.
But Greater Canberra, a community group which advocates for more housing to be built in the capital, seized on the survey result, saying it showed a "strong desire" for so-called missing middle homes.
The group released a statement on Tuesday night, noting 13 per cent of those who completed the survey were under 35 years old. A quarter of respondents were aged between 45 and 54.
"Given how skewed the consultation's demographics were, the significance of the widespread support for universal zoning reform and medium density housing cannot be understated," the group's convenor, Howard Maclean, said.
"The ACT government should act to incorporate ambitious RZ1 and RZ2 zoning reforms proposed by Missing Middle Canberra into the draft territory plan."
Missing Middle Canberra - a coalition of housing advocates, community organisations, urban planners and industry bodies - in February called on the government to ditch the RZ1 zoning, which limits suburbs to single detached houses, to instead allow more townhouses and terraces.
The group's open letter also said current planning laws act as a "handbrake" on new social housing developments.
Chief Minister Andrew Barr in March said there would be great value in making it easier to build secondary houses in existing suburbs, saying "missing middle" homes would be needed to house a rapidly growing population.
Mr Barr said expanding the dual occupancy rules which allowed blocks cleared as part of the Mr Fluffy asbestos insulation buy-back program to be redeveloped would help deliver smaller, more affordable homes in established areas.
We've made it a whole lot easier for you to have your say. Our new comment platform requires only one log-in to access articles and to join the discussion on The Canberra Times website. Find out how to register so you can enjoy civil, friendly and engaging discussions. See our moderation policy here.
