Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (18 February) . . Page.. 11 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

The committee was concerned to learn that the planning authorities received only seven submissions on the draft variation. When questioned by committee members, officials said that they had insufficient resources to, for example, write to each shopping centre owner/manager or to letterbox houses in the vicinity of local centres. This inadequate consultation process makes it extremely likely that most residents will be taken by surprise if the proposed types of land uses are permitted. In addition, the committee is aware that another element of the Government's retail policy package was an ideas competition for local shops, aimed at bringing forward innovative ideas for our local centres. The committee understands that officials are processing these ideas. It is possible that some of the ideas will impact on the range of land uses being suggested in draft variation No. 64.

Mr Speaker, in this statement there are, in fact, two recommendations. That is unusual for a statement to the Assembly; but I hope that the Minister, in particular, takes note of those recommendations that come through this statement. The first recommendation of the committee is that the Government promptly institute improved consultation with the owners/managers of local centres and local residents; also, that the Government quickly complete the assessment of the ideas competition for local shops in order to incorporate any relevant ideas into the proposed variation. Once this greater consultation is completed, members of the Assembly will be able to properly gauge the extent of community interest in the proposals. In addition, a much wider range of people will understand what is being proposed, and why.

In passing, the committee draws attention to the need for a smooth and thorough consultation process whenever the Government is suggesting a major change to a community's local environment. It seems to the committee that more resources - enabling much better targeting of local opinion, both residential and business - are required. The committee hopes that the Government will take the appropriate action.

Members of the committee have a second concern about the draft variation. This concern is that officials could not show the committee what guidelines will apply to their assessment of a local shopping centre as "not commercially viable". This is very significant, because, if the owner of a centre can show that his or her centre is not commercially viable, then the draft variation will allow shops to be converted to wholly residential. This change of land use will involve payment of the change of use charge - formerly known as "betterment" - making it all the more important to have clear, well-understood guidelines. Also, the approach taken should enhance the viability of local shopping centres and should not too readily facilitate their conversion to light industrial, residential or other uses.

The committee was told by officials that the guidelines would not be ready for at least four weeks. This leads to our second recommendation. The committee does not consider that the draft variation should be endorsed until these guidelines are available to members of this Assembly. Of course, the guidelines should reflect extensive consultation with business and residents. In particular, it seems to members of this committee that the guidelines should give clear examples of the detailed nature of likely new uses of the shopping centres. They should be displayed on the community billboards located in some of our local centres, so as to facilitate local awareness.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .