Page 3481 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 21 September 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the Assembly agreed to back in 1996 and that governs the future renewal of retail centres such as the local shops to this day.
The government wants to see strong, vibrant local centres maintained. Where we have issues with centres such as at Giralang or Aranda, the government’s view is that the provisions of the territory plan are appropriate; that some level of residential activity alongside retail activity can work and can deliver really good outcomes. I have seen plenty of examples nationally and internationally that mixed-use development can work and can work really well. Local communities can still have the retail facilities they expect, the convenience shopping they expect and a lively centre with residential uses.
The challenge is to make that policy work in practice. For example, in relation to Giralang, the government has said very clearly to the proposed developers there, “Do not expect to just deliver a little corner store and that is all you are going to need to do. Expect to be required to deliver a comprehensive range of retailing or opportunities for retailing as well as residential, if that is the path you want to go down.” That is what communities expect. I think we have to lift the bar, from the experience of Latham, which is just a corner store; we have to expect more. That is the message that I have communicated and the government has communicated both to the residents who have concerns about Giralang and to the potential proponents.
The reason that I have foreshadowed that the government will amend this motion is to take account of some of the issues that Dr Foskey raises which, again, are incorrect. For example, she makes the assertion in her motion at point 3:
rejects intense residential development of core areas in suburbs that lack shops, schools and community facilities;
First of all, development in core areas is not intense. Development in core areas is dual occupancy or triple occupancy; it is two storeys; and it may or may not involve block consolidation. That is not intense development. Yes, it is a higher level of density, but it is not high density. I think it is quite misleading to suggest that it is in any way intense.
Secondly, and just as importantly, when you look at where core areas were put in place through variation 200, they were not put into suburbs that did not have a local shop and were not in proximity to a larger shopping centre. For example, Aranda has core areas. It has core areas predominantly because of its proximity to the Jamison group centre. Stirling does not have a local shopping centre—it never has had one—but it also has core areas because of the proximity of parts of Stirling to the Weston group centre. Dr Foskey’s assertion is simply incorrect on that point, and that is why I have foreshadowed an amendment that deals with that issue.
In terms of the evaluation of the effectiveness of the garden city provisions, the government is meeting its commitment that we made to Kerrie Tucker, as a representative of the Greens in this place, to do that after a set period of time. This evaluation is not meant to be a revisitation of the whole policy; it does not say that the policy is no longer needed or that the policy is not appropriate: we believe that the policy setting is appropriate. But it is about evaluating it, finetuning it and improving its operation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .