Page 3488 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 21 September 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
As we know, variation 200 to the territory plan, the garden city variation, introduced new residential policies to protect the predominately low density, low rise, leafy character of most established residential areas, and we were talking about them only yesterday. At the same time, it encouraged more housing in locations that have convenient access to commercial centres, including local centres, which respond to the changing demography of our city. As Dr Foskey said, the Greens supported this approach in the government’s last term.
Both documents were the subject of extensive public consultation before being adopted by the government and accepted by the Assembly. As the CEO of Volunteering ACT at the time of the consultations on the spatial plan, I well remember and appreciated the extensive and inclusive nature of the consultation on the spatial plan. Both documents recognised the vital importance of retail and community services to the social fabric of our suburbs. In this regard, the government wholly supports the first point of Dr Foskey’s motion.
As Mr Corbell said, one of the objectives of the garden city provisions was to introduce a planning regime that strengthens the viability of local shops and schools. It did this by identifying residential core areas within walking distance of local shopping centres. In the core areas, residential development continues to be encouraged. At the same time, the garden city provisions provided increased protection against redevelopment in suburban areas that are located further away from local centres. I believe that is a sensible and sound policy. I think you would agree, Dr Foskey.
Through the garden city variation, the government replaced a random, ad hoc approach to the location of residential redevelopment with one that encouraged residential redevelopment in the suburbs to be close to local shops and public transport routes. This policy will help to maintain the population around the local shops and schools, thereby assisting their viability. It maintains the amenity of the suburbs and it is in line with the government’s sustainable transport policy. The government has therefore already acted on Dr Foskey’s second point by introducing policies and a planning regime that strengthens the viability of local shops and schools.
What the government does not support, however, is any suggestion that it introduce a planning regime that directly intervenes in the market place or assumes responsibility for the actual provision of local shops. Market forces over which the government has little influence primarily drive the viability of local shops. The concept that the government deliberately sets out to create situations where local shops close, Dr Foskey, is a nonsense. We know that the reasons why local shops close or become run down are many and complex. It is not in the government’s ballpark to ensure that we have local shops in our community. It is up to the community itself and it is up to private enterprise. Given that many residents walk to nearby shops in adjacent suburbs, the government does not support that part of Dr Foskey’s motion that rejects intense residential redevelopment of core areas in suburbs that lack shops.
In conclusion, the government is committed to supporting the viability of local shops where it can legitimately do so through the planning process. The core area policy, introduced through the garden city provisions, is an excellent example of planning policies that aim to support the continued viability of local shops. However, the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .