The Southern Downs Regional Council’s Small House Survey results have been overwhelmingly in favour of small and tiny houses to be allowed in the region.
The responses were published in an attachment to the council’s ordinary meeting on 21 August. There were 491 respondents, and people’s comments can be found on the SDRC website under ‘council>council meetings agendas/minutes’. Here is a sample of the answers to the six questions.
Question 1
Do you think that allowing small or tiny homes will help with the Southern Downs housing crisis in terms of supply and affordability?
The ‘yes’ answers far outweighed the ‘no’ replies.
“A lot of people are very happy with small/tiny houses and they fill a big gap in housing for small families or single people needing housing.”
“It is time to expand the concept of ‘homes’ to one of affordability and access for employment.”
“Introducing tiny homes can rejuvenate under-utilised or blighted areas, creating vibrant communities and stimulating local economies.”
“Older, single women and men need one bedroom, a lounge, kitchen and bathroom. Too many big houses in Australia.”
“It will help young people get their first home.”
“Most of the time a tiny home is just an entry stepping stone for people into the property market. If Southern Downs allows that here it will attract younger people to enter the market here, fall in love with the area then stay on – quite possibly building a permanent house, the tiny home becoming the guest bedroom/granny flat/teenage retreat etc.”
“Any size house is better than sleeping in your car or under the bridge.”
“The Southern Downs region has one of the toughest rental and housing crises within Australia. We should not be forcing people into homelessness and into living in cars and the like. I have seen the tents popping up and people forced to live in cars. Their needs and basic human rights are not being met, with limited – if any – access to toilets, showers, cooking facilities and health needs.”
“Please do not build them in one place as this runs the risk of class division and discrimination within the shire. They need to be integrated into new housing developments as well as existing homes on land that can be subdivided.”
Some responses were extremely detailed, with one expanding on the points within the categories of increased housing supply and land utilisation (smaller houses being put on smaller blocks of land), affordability through lower construction costs, sustainability and lower environmental impact, flexibility and mobility and the community and social benefits of innovative housing solutions.
One of the issues raised by a ’no’ responder was that numerous tiny homes could mean the development of slum sectors with no open space in yards for children, resulting in children running rampant through the streets, leading to crime and social problems.
Another said, “We need housing options for those starting out, then places where they can progress with a family, and then move to something more suitable. A tiny house is not a long-term home.”
Question 2:
Small and tiny homes can come in different looks. Which of these describe what you would accept being built or installed next to you? (Respondents were asked select all options that applied.)
There were just 23 answers for no small or tiny homes, 331 wanted small and tiny homes which looked like ordinary homes (brick, slab on ground), 367 were in favour of prefabricated small and tiny homes relocated to the property, 337 agreed with small and tiny homes that looked like an ordinary home or shed, 268 responses were in favour of small and tiny homes on wheels but surrounded by fixtures like decking, and 369 liked the concept of small and tiny homes within existing properties, for example granny flats.
Question 3 asked where in the Southern Downs people thought tiny or small homes could be allowed to be built (indicating all acceptable options). Answers included 214 for inner township in medium density residential and mixed use zones, 265 for outer township in low density residential zone, 264 for smaller villages, 274 for rural residential, 245 for rural farming areas and 338 happy with any location suitable for housing.
Question 4 queried if respondents thought small or tiny homes would help with housing affordability in the Southern Downs. The yes vote had 427, while no received 56.
One commenter said, “Hopefully single people will be able to move into this type of housing, freeing up bigger homes for families looking for accommodation.”
One of the no voters said, “Lots of people in small homes in a small area equals a disaster waiting to happen. Look what happened when the NSW Government built suburbs full of Housing Commission homes. All the same demographic and it was a disaster. some have already been bulldozed. Take a leaf from their book.”
Another said, “Some tiny homes are still expensive. A better plan would be to build small homes that can be easily expanded when necessary.”
Question 5: Do you think small and tiny homes are a positive solution for the Southern Downs region at this time?
Answers: Yes, 432. No, 56.
One of the ‘yes’ answers had this to say: “Tiny homes are attractive aesthetically and affordable to more people. They can be positioned easily on beautiful parts of a property, encouraging more people into the local area and boosting the local economy. They can also be moved if no longer required, and from a fire safety perspective, can even be relocated in the event of bushfires. There is a huge demand across the country for these sorts of dwellings for both affordable housing and tourist accommodation. Council should be commended for exploring this option.”
Another commented, “Housing should be a fundamental right. That includes small housing.”
“I think you need to stop focussing on the impact on the currently housed people’s feelings if a little house moves in next door and start serving your population that is in need,” said another.
Question 6: Would you live in a small or tiny home if more were available in the Southern Downs?
Yes: 344. No: 139
The ‘yes’ answers included “if the choice was limited“; “yes, as a temporary solution“; “good to downsize for retirement“ and comments on ease of maintenance/safety/warmth/cheaper cost/allowing people better opportunities to stay close to family. One answer asked for in-person forums to be conducted as surveys could be formulated to steer answers to fit a particular agenda, “For example, if the council is ultimately trying to steer the community to a more dense form of housing without disclosing their full intent. There eeds to be more honest, open and transparent debate with the opportunity to question the council’s intent to avoid back-door railroading into undesirable outcomes such as the 15-minute city type of scenario.”
The ‘no’ answers included too small, not for me, not practical for a young and busy family.
