Tourism Planning Taskforce Report - Western Australian Planning ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 3Current tourism development frameworkThe outcome reported is that the higher-valuedevelopments consistently are used fortourism purposes, although this is notregulated, with little permanent residentialoccupation. At the local government level, thiswas considered to reflect the higher demandand higher returns that could be achieved fortourist accommodation, over residentialdevelopment. This was not supported withfigures on tourism use of such developments,and there was some evidence thatresidential/holiday home use of suchdevelopments is higher than acknowledged bythe local government. The confidence intourism uses being able to outperformresidential uses in competing for limitedhigh-value development sites was alsoinconsistent with trends identified on the GoldCoast of the conversion of beachfront tourismdevelopments to residential units.In a non-urban inland setting, where the areaavailable for development was limited, it wasacknowledged that it would look more closelyat the tourism versus residential issue, but thatit had not arisen to date.Surf Coast Shire, VictoriaThe planning scheme for this shire is similar toMaroochydore in that areas identified at astrategic level for the encouragement oftourism development are not zonedrestrictively for that purpose, but provide formixed use development. It was reported thatwithin the two main coastal towns of Lorneand Torquay, there has been no problem ofresidential use competing with touristaccommodation. recent extensivedevelopment of higher-density apartments andresidential dwellings within these towns hadresulted in the majority being leased fortourism use. However, it was alsoacknowledged that new tourist-resortdevelopment had been limited, and that thismay relate to the high tourism use ofapartment accommodation.Ballina and Hastings shires, New South WalesThe general advice was that in Sydney andalong the NSW North Coast, there is usuallylimited difference between tourismdevelopment and residential development inrespect to development controls, with thedevelopments often being strata titled. Wherethere was a specific tourist zoning (which waslimited, as most higher density residential andcommercial type zones provided for tourismdevelopment), development conditions limitingthe use would be considered. It also wasadvised that strata tourism developments hadin the past been used as a basis for achievingrural-residential subdivision and that suchproposals now required rezoning to ensure thedevelopment was primarily tourism.The local governments clear emphasis in thedevelopment assessment process was onenvironmental, site amenity and communityissues, as opposed to the detail of theoccupation. It also was clear at this level thatthe implications of the potential loss ofhigh-value tourism sites to residential use, andthe impact of tourism use of residentialdevelopment on the development of touristresorts were not issues that had receivedextended consideration. The taskforceconsidered that this may relate to the extent ofexisting development in the areas reviewed, iethe development of high-value coastalgreenfield sites is not a common occurrence,and what was reported as the high demandand financial advantage of tourism overresidential development.Overall, it was clear that there commonly wasno distinction in the planning frameworkbetween permanent and tourism use ofresidential buildings in areas subject to touristaccommodation pressure, and that this wasnot necessarily a result of extendedconsideration of the issues, but simply theplanning system accommodating marketdemand.The tourism strategies of the various Statetourism departments also were reviewed,none of which contained policy statementsspecific to the issue the subject of the terms ofreference.3.4 SummaryIn reviewing the statutory and strategicdevelopment framework in Western Australiaand other States, the intention was toascertain how the terms of reference issuesare addressed, to provide a framework for thetaskforce investigations. It is clear that inWestern Australia, there is a relativelyTourism Planning Taskforce Report27
Chapter 3Current tourism development frameworkdetailed, although inconsistent, statutoryframework at a local level, particularlycompared with other States, but this is notsupported with State-level policy direction.This local government statutory frameworkand the protection it can afford to tourism siteswas recognised as an advantage for thetourism industry by a number of tourism andgovernment representatives in South-EastQueensland. While the lack of State policydirection reflects the arrangement in otherstates, there clearly are different pressures inWA relating to population, tourist numbers,and tourism seasonality, which may wellrequire the development of a differentapproach.28 Tourism Planning Taskforce Report
Page 3 and 4: 1Front cover photographs:1 Yallingu
Page 7 and 8: GLOSSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Page 10 and 11: Summary• The rezoning of a touris
Page 12: Chapter 1Introduction1 Introduction
Page 16 and 17: Chapter 1Introduction• To identif
Page 18 and 19: Chapter 2State tourist accommodatio
Page 30 and 31: Chapter 3Current tourism developmen
Page 40 and 41: Chapter 4Term of Reference 14 Term
Page 42 and 43: Chapter 4Term of Reference 1require
Page 46 and 47: Chapter 5Term of Reference 2framewo
Page 48 and 49: Chapter 5Term of Reference 2require
Page 50 and 51: Chapter 5Term of Reference 2a facil
Page 52 and 53: Chapter 5Term of Reference 2The uni
Page 54 and 55: Chapter 5Term of Reference 2• Whe
Page 58 and 59: Chapter 6Term of Reference 3clear t
Page 60 and 61: Chapter 6Term of Reference 3such de
Page 62 and 63: Chapter 6Term of Reference 3comply
Page 64 and 65: Chapter 6Term of Reference 3arrange
Page 68 and 69: Chapter 7Term of Reference 4Table 1
Page 70 and 71: Chapter 7Term of Reference 47.3.1 Z
Page 72 and 73: Chapter 7Term of Reference 4guests
Page 74 and 75: Chapter 8Taskforce recommendations8
Page 76 and 77: Chapter 8Taskforce recommendationsc
Page 78 and 79: Chapter 8Taskforce recommendations-
Page 80 and 81: Chapter 8Taskforce recommendationsd
Page 82 and 83: Chapter 8Taskforce recommendationss
Page 84 and 85: Chapter 8Taskforce recommendationsf
Page 86 and 87: Chapter 8Taskforce recommendationsf
Page 88 and 89:
Chapter 8Taskforce recommendationsT
Page 90 and 91:
Chapter 8Taskforce recommendationsT
Page 92 and 93:
Chapter 8Taskforce recommendationsu
Page 94 and 95:
Chapter 8Taskforce recommendationsf
Page 96 and 97:
Chapter 8Taskforce recommendationso
Page 98 and 99:
Chapter 8Taskforce recommendationsR
Page 100 and 101:
ReferencesReferencesAustralian Bure
Page 102 and 103:
Further readingGetz, Donald (1993)
Page 104 and 105:
Further readingWilliams, P., Penros
Page 106 and 107:
Appendix 1In the second option, the
Page 108 and 109:
Appendix 2Appendix 2List of submitt
Page 110 and 111:
Appendix 2Executive Officer*(4) REI
Page 112 and 113:
Appendix 33 Responsibility forprepa
Page 114 and 115:
Appendix 38 Proposed criteria for t
Page 116 and 117:
Appendix 311 Residential componento
Page 118 and 119:
Appendix 315 Use of tiered system f
Page 120 and 121:
Appendix 319 Managementarrangements
Page 122 and 123:
Appendix 322 Land Tax. 7 Support fo
Page 124 and 125:
Appendix 327 Review period fortaskf
Page 126 and 127:
Appendix 4Bradley Woods,Karen Conne
Page 128 and 129:
Appendix 5Unit owners are not able
show all

Tourism Planning Taskforce Report - Western Australian Planning ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?