Mr. James Benson:

The Senator is correct. We would like an economic viability assessment to tell whether a project is viable so as to avoid the inefficient use of resources and time by all parties concerned, although this does not square the conundrum about density and viability. The compact growth design standards that we mentioned might be worth further investigation. Is there the potential to examine open, private-use and community spaces? Within that, there is the potential to increase the number of owned or access units through the greater use of traditional units and duplexes.

There is still a requirement for apartments within that, but the number is smaller. We still get the 35 units per hectare or the higher figure if near critical infrastructure. Those higher-density and more own-door access units can be achieved by just looking at separation distances, open spaces and private-use spaces. That is without any derogation to standards or changing the size of homes. The traditional home could still be the same size but it is about qualitative rather than quantitative assessment of open spaces. The days of having 20% open space in one corner of a field for someone to play football as opposed to having more potentially quality pockets around the development may be gone. There could be amenities and little play hubs for people to use. It is what people want. When we speak to our members who have dealt with the public, they tell us people want community spaces and a greater sense of community. They want to go back to what we had before. That could be achieved. The review of the compact growth design standards is critical and if it could be done in conjunction with the economic viability assessment, we would see greater delivery of affordable homes.