Last night (8/11/21) the Glenorchy Planning Authority approved a massive development of social housing for North Chigwell.

Centacare Evolve Housing, the proponent of the development, have wasted an opportunity to come up with a design that would be a role model for future developments of this type.

Sad to say, it appears that the architectural firm Prime Design was given a brief to maximize the number of dwellings and minimize the construction cost.

The proposal to replace the current learning centre, contains 55 units, including ten two-storey units.

Some might say that anyone desperately needing housing should be grateful for whatever they are offered. “It’s better than living in a car or caravan.” But if built as designed, this development will be a rabbit warren of units with no facilities for the residents.

In summing up, the mayor gave the impression that the presence of the North Chigwell Soccer Ground outside the site could excuse the lack of amenity inside.

Another alderman stated that amenities were available in Claremont 2km to the north and the Chigwell Neighbourhood House 1km in the other direction in the other direction – as if that excused the lack of amenity inside. Not particularly convenient.

Some of the children living there will be able to see the soccer ground over their back fence but will have to walk half a kilometre to get there.

Adults living there will be provided with no amenities for social interaction, nothing to assist in making social connections, nothing to facilitate mutual support.

Nothing about the design will give the observer a sense of place, or give the resident a sense of belonging to a community. Might that be deliberate, an incentive for residents to explore ways to leave, to move on to affordable housing or even private housing elsewhere? That would be extremely disappointing.

Reference to the planning scheme

The development standard most relevant to my concern is 8.4.3 titled “Site coverage and private open space for all dwellings”.

The report concedes that the proposal does not satisfy the acceptable solution for this standard because ten units do not have the required minimum amount of private outdoor space.

Performance criterion P1 for that standard requires each dwelling to have enough private open space to accommodate outdoor recreation “consistent with the projected requirements of the occupants and, for multiple dwellings, take into account any common open space provided for this purpose within the development”.

I take this to mean that the more shared open space is provided for recreation, the less is required for each dwelling. And conversely, the more space is provided to each dwelling, the less is required in the form of shared recreational space.

As I understand it, there is an understanding of the total amount of recreational space required in a development, and that amount can be shared between public and private.

In this proposal we have a double whammy.

Ten units have insufficient private open space in absolute terms, and also certainly insufficient for recreation. But the residents of those units will have no shared recreational space to compensate. They lose on the private and on the public.

They would be entitled to believe they have been treated unfairly.

This is completely unacceptable and should provide sufficient cause for rejection.

In conclusion

This proposal is totally devoid of any social infrastructure, any facility for recreation or social interaction or networking. In fact it is antisocial.

Furthermore the proposal fails development standard 8.4.3. Residents of at least ten units will have insufficient private open space for recreation, and not have compensating access to public open space for recreation.

All developments of social housing in Glenorchy in recent times commit the same sin of no social amenity; examples include 190 Marys Hope Road, 79 Allunga Road (approved but not yet built), and 95 Abbotsfield Road.

An example of a seven year old development providing a dramatic contrast can be found in Hopkins Street, Moonah. Details can be found here and here.

It is time to put the “social” back into social housing.

---

Other related material to learn more

Tasmanian government Social Housing Policy September 2020

“Building Social Value into Affordable Housing“, University of Melbourne School of Design

Manchester City Council’s Social Value Policy 2021

Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme

National Social Value Measurement Framework (UK)

Transforming Housing: Affordable Housing for All (Uni of Melbourne)

Social Housing Community Improvement Fund (SHCIF) NSW

“State Social Housing“, Architecture & Design, 12 Oct 2021