This feature was developed from the YIMBY Hobart submission to the Tasmanian Government inquiry into expanding the Urban Growth Boundary of Hobart.

YIMBY Hobart was established to advocate for:

  1. Housing abundance: More housing of all types where people want to live.

  2. A city for people at all ages and stages, of all means and abilities: Our city and suburbs should reflect the diversity of the community as a whole.

  3. Better access for everyone: Being an active participant in our city should not rely on owning a car.

Despite increased housing development being the claimed purpose of the UGB expansion, YIMBY Hobart does not support the proposal for the following reasons:

  • There is ample land available within the existing UGB  to meet Hobart’s housing needs for the foreseeable future.

  • Continued development on the urban fringe imposes significant, unaccounted for costs on residents and the community more broadly.

  • Expanding the UGB while the STRLUS is being updated undermines both that process and the Government’s record of planning reform.

  • Encouraging continued urban sprawl undermines the Government’s wider policy agenda.

We expand on these points individually below.

There is ample land available within the existing Urban Growth Boundary to meet Hobart’s housing needs for the foreseeable future.

Though the proposed UGB expansion has been justified on the basis it will “free up” land and “unlock thousands of new homes”, the Tasmanian Government does not need to expand the UGB to free up land and unlock housing.

Hobart is the least dense Australian capital – there is significant untapped potential for infill and medium-density development in our established suburbs.

While higher density apartment-style housing is best suited to areas close to activity centres, there is also plenty of capacity for townhouse developments in lower density suburbs that would compliment the character of these communities.

The changes proposed in the Improving Residential Standards in Tasmania document would go a long way to unlocking this soft densification in existing suburbs, and could be further strengthened to enable much greater density in existing activity centres. Similarly, the Government is aware of the opportunity for large-scale infill development along the Northern Suburbs Transit Corridor, as evidenced by the release Northern Suburbs Transit Corridor Growth Strategy. Prioritising action on these two opportunities alone, alongside local government initiatives such as Clarence City Council’s City Heart Project, would ensure more than enough suitable land for a range of housing types was available within the existing UGB.

Continued development on the urban fringe imposes significant, unaccounted for costs on residents and the community more broadly.

The transport choices necessitated by low-density outer-urban residential developments impose significant costs on residents that are often not captured or accounted for. Many households will need to maintain two cars to ensure access to jobs and services such as education and healthcare. Many of these services could instead be accessed through active or public transport if housing was built closer to existing activity centres. Though many households, and particularly families, will need to retain one private vehicle regardless of where they live, moving from two to one vehicles represents a halving of transport costs. Transport savings are likely to be even higher than this in reality, as work commutes are also likely to be shorter, or can be undertaken using alternative transport.

The costs of sprawl are not just borne by the residents of growth suburbs, but also by the wider community in the form of avoidable infrastructure and services spending.

Examples of significant infrastructure spending that could potentially have been scaled down, delayed or avoided completely if less residential development had occurred on the urban fringe include; $365m on the Tasman Highway upgrade, $60+m on the Southern Outlet fifth lane, $60m on upgrading South Arm Rd, $75+m to upgrade the Kingston Bypass and Algona Rd roundabout. Less well accounted for again is the cost of extending basic services such as water and electricity to new developments, and the opportunity cost of sub-optimal use of existing services in existing neighbourhoods. 

At the confluence of these two sets of costs are the private and public cost of congestion. Developing on the urban fringe forces more people to drive further to access jobs and services. This increased road usage generates congestion for everyone who uses the roads. This congestion costs individuals and society in the form of lost productivity, increased fuel consumption, and increased emissions and vehicle wear. BudgetDirect research from 2021 suggests Hobart has the second highest “cost of congestion” of any Australian city, at $1,889 per driver per annum. Decades of experience from around the world has shown that we cannot road-build our way out of this problem, we need to change the way we design our cities.

Importantly, none of these financial burdens are borne by the developers of outer-urban housing, who are essentially able to artificially lower prices by socialising many of their costs. Were the true costs of this style of development captured, alongside the overflow benefits of increased density, it would likely render any price advantage negligible.

Expanding the UGB while the STRLUS is being updated undermines both that process and the Government’s record of planning reform.

This Government can be proud of its record of planning reform, from establishing a single statewide planning scheme, to developing consistent Planning Policies to guide future updates and improvements. According to the Government’s own publications, the Regional Land-Use Strategies are the missing piece of the planning puzzle. There has therefore been understandable stakeholder and local government interest in the long-awaited update to the STRLUS.

To proceed with expanding the UGB in the middle of the STRLUS update would critically undermine the process by showing stakeholders and the public the Government has no interest in taking their views on-board. A wide range of interested parties, from NIMBYs to YIMBYs, have engaged in good faith in the update process to date. To make major decisions on the future of residential development in the region before this process is complete renders these contributions largely meaningless.

Recent proposals by the Government, from Development Activity Panels to limiting third party appeals are undermining its track record of sensible planning reform. YIMBY Hobart is strongly supportive of relaxing, and often removing entirely, planning requirements for residential developments in existing neighbourhoods and activity centres.

This fact does not mean we want a Wild West planning system, where settings change frequently, Ministers intervene in processes and workarounds are established to overcome project-specific challenges.

This ad-hoc approach increases sovereign risk and dissuades out-of-state developers without established relationships with decision-makers from entering the Tasmanian market. The Government should instead focus on establishing a clear and coherent planning system that creates a level playing field and incentivises residential development in existing suburbs and activity centres.

Encouraging continued urban sprawl undermines the Government’s wider policy agenda.

The Greater Hobart Plan, which sets out a 30 year vision for the city, includes a 70% infill target for new residential development. This target certainly would not have been met in recent years, with the vast bulk of residential development occurring on the urban fringe – expanding the UGB will only reinforce this trend. The Plan, developed in collaboration with local government, represents the only credible attempt in recent decades (bar the STRLUS) to guide Hobart’s development in a more sustainable, efficient and liveable direction.

Expanding the UGB will critically undermine both the intent and the practical delivery of the Plan, while harming any future Tasmanian Government efforts to collaborate with local government on strategic urban planning.

Similarly, the Government has released a range of strategies, policies and consultation documents in recent years that incorporate actions or goals that speak to the need to densify our cities. Examples include the Tasmanian Housing Strategy, the Tasmanian Population Policy, and the Tasmanian Positive Sustainability Strategy. The goals and actions set out in these documents should, ostensibly, be guiding Government policy and decision-making. Instead, the Government seems to be pulling in the opposite direction entirely with the proposed UGB expansion.

In conclusion, expanding the UGB will impose significant costs on individuals and society, undermine important planning reforms and the Government’s own policy agenda, all while prime opportunities to unlock land in the existing UGB go unrealised. 

YIMBY Hobart – YIMBY stands for YES In My Backyard; YIMBYs advocate for more housing where people want to live – is a community group advocating for housing abundance, giving people choice about how and where they live, lowering prices and increasing the bargaining power of renters and buyers.