Page 3483 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 21 September 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
also key tenants in many small local centres. Increased co-ownership—and there has been an increase in co-ownership since the 1970s—has also driven changes in retail spending habits.
All of these issues highlight that our local centres have to adapt. The important thing is that we have a planning framework that allows that adaptation whilst also recognising that they continue to serve a fundamental role in providing a social focus for a suburb as well as convenience retailing for a suburb.
I believe the policy setting is pretty much right. I believe, and the government believes, that the renewal policies in place in the territory plan provide the right balance. We have to make sure we apply them rigorously; we have to make sure that proponents who come in proposing redevelopment of centres maintain a strong level of retailing activity as well as any residential development proposed to take place.
The issues Dr Foskey raises are important. The government is conscious of these, and we believe that there is a comprehensive range of policy responses in place. It is not something that the government has complete control over as well. There is a level of commercial and market response involved. The challenge at the heart of planning policies is to be cognisant of the commercial and market issues that are at play, as well as the community expectations and community rights to convenient shopping in their suburb, in delivering the best possible outcome.
With that in mind, I now move the amendment circulated in my name to Dr Foskey’s motion. I move:
Omit paragraphs (3) and (4), substitute:
“(3) notes that the identification of core areas in general supports the viability of local centres, group centres and other community infrastructure;
(4) notes that where A10 areas were identified in suburbs without shops, the areas were close to Group centres located in adjacent suburbs and in other areas, such as Turner, no core areas were identified;
(5) notes the Government’s commitment to building and supporting the viability of local and group centres; and
(6) notes that the ACT Planning and Land Authority has commenced an evaluation of the effectiveness of the Garden City Variation in achieving the outcomes specified in the Government’s policies on urban consolidation.”.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo) (4.07): I will speak mainly to the original motion. I do not have the amendment in front of me, but I have no doubt I know the thrust of what it says.
Mrs Dunne: It will be a self-congratulatory diatribe, as usual.
MR SESELJA: I am sure it is self-congratulatory, but I will focus more on Dr Foskey’s original motion. Most of the motion is pretty straightforward. Paragraph (1) states: “recognises the vital importance of retail and community services”. That might be slightly overstating it, but I think the general intention behind that is fine. Paragraph (4)
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .