The argument for sustainable urban development is about more than housing design and density, says energy expert Alan Pears. Ann White reports.

The question of housing affordability is a furphy, says Alan Pears, a consultant and academic at the forefront of the energy debate in Australia.

“We’ve got a seriously misguided debate going on at the moment about housing affordability with some saying we can’t afford sustainable features in new homes. It’s the other way around - we can’t afford not to have sustainable features,” said Mr Pears.

“The argument is an attempt to create an artificial conflict between good design and affordability.”
Mr Pears believes sustainable urban development isn’t just about housing design and density, it’s about organisation and access.

“Most people call it transport,” he said. “I call it access.

“A developer should have an obligation to show how people living in that development could have a good quality of life without having to rely on a car. Good quality is, for example, not taking half a day to get to the doctor by bus.”

The housing affordability argument takes on a different complexion when the entire household budget in taken into consideration.

The average Australian householder spends between 15 and 20 per cent of their household budget on transport. Housing affordability in the long term is affected by world oil prices, particularly in the light of peak oil, climate change and quality of life. A well-designed house has cheaper ongoing energy and water costs and, if located in a well designed development with good transport to services, reduces transport costs and provides many social benefits contributing to a better quality of life.

“Generally speaking, five star energy efficiency measures in new homes reduce the annual energy bill by more than the slightly higher mortgage repayments needed to pay for them,” Mr Pears said.

Rising energy prices around Australia, and the prospect that emissions trading will increase them further, make household energy efficiency measures even more attractive.

The poor design of decentralised, distributed, low density housing developments away from public transport systems locks people into a lifestyle that’s expensive in terms of ongoing costs of energy and transport, travel time, and the environmental impact of emissions. Residents are vulnerable to rising oil prices and social dislocation of not being able to drive, for example from accidents, loss of licence, or being under 18 or elderly.

However to achieve quality sustainable urban development, Mr Pears said: “We’ve got to cross a lot of organisational, cultural and political boundaries to get all this right.

“The Queensland energy Minister a couple of years ago made the point that each new air conditioner installed in a Queensland house led to a need for $13,000 investment in energy-supply infrastructure. The building industry resists anything more than marginal improvement because they’re focussed on the sticker price of the house. The energy sector should be putting money into helping people build much better houses that have little or no need for air conditioners.”

The changing nature of the population is not reflected in most new housing developments. More than 55 per cent of Australian households these days are one or two people, however the bulk of new housing is the traditional model.
“When the new housing market is driven by people wanting to build detached conventional dwellings, or by developers who are focussed on rental properties that deliver a financial return without necessarily quality of life, no one has the kind of housing they most want.”

The new Sunshine Coast council has opportunities to improve the sustainability of the region’s housing, beginning with detailed social research into people’s housing and transport needs, using the results to help create sustainable developments.
“It’s not fair that people today pay the full cost of sustainable housing that will benefit people 50 or 100 years in the future; people who use and benefit from it into the future should repay some of this cost,” Mr Pears said.
A progressive local council could borrow money on behalf of the people who live in new developments in exchange for adding a regular levy to be paid by the residents enjoying all the benefits of good access and better public transport.
Infrastructure like public transport must be locked in early to new developments because the lifespan of urban layout is very long and changing it retrospectively is very difficult.

“This is why historically governments borrowed on our behalf to invest in community infrastructure,” he said. “Instead, we now have the bizarre model of governments not having debt because it’s somehow bad, but rampant private debt is okay.”

Alan Pears’ work in sustainable energy and the environment has included helping develop and implement public information and education, appliance energy labelling and mandatory building insulation regulations. As co-director of Sustainable Solutions, he has been involved in building energy and environmental rating and regulation, green building projects, educational software, green appliance development, industrial and business energy and environmental management, and policy analysis.