Tourism Planning Taskforce Report - Western Australian Planning ...

Chapter 4Term of Reference 14.4 Site-specific justificationsProponents seeking a residential componentput forward a considerable number ofjustifications that relate to the specificcircumstances of a site or the town/localitywithin which it is located.The taskforce was unable to be definitive onthe general validity of these due to the varioussite locations and conditions involved. It did;however acknowledge the need for sites to beconsidered on an individual basis taking intoaccount particular location issues, in additionto their potential strategic tourism value. Siteszoned for tourism purposes do not alwayshave a high potential or value for tourismpurposes due to a number of factors, including:• initial zoning that may have beeninappropriate;• changed market/demand situation; and• development of surrounding land uses thatno longer are compatible with tourismdevelopment.It also was noted that tourism developmentoften has been used as a vehicle in promotingand seeking approval for wider developmentschemes that primarily are residential. In suchcircumstances, the tourism sites can remainundeveloped after the residential developmenthas been completed. Thereafter, they are oftenreduced in size and/or relocated to provideadditional residential capacity, and in somecases rendered un-developable due tosurrounding land use. The taskforceacknowledged the need to provide the optionto re-evaluate the appropriateness of thetourism zoning of such sites. It also wasstrongly of the view that an increase in theup-front critical evaluation of such proposals inthe future was required.The taskforce also concluded that proposalswhere a residential element was included thatotherwise was outside the adopted planningframework, due to the desire to achieve atourism development, need to be consideredvery cautiously due to the potential for highresidential infrastructure and servicing costs tothe State of such development.Under both scenarios, where a residentialcomponent is considered consistent with theagreed planning framework, mechanismslinking tourism facility development to thestages of an overall project were consideredessential. Where this could not be achievedeffectively the development should not besupported.4.5 ConclusionsOn the basis of its findings, the taskforceaccepted that the basic financial justificationsput forward by developers in support of apermanent residential component in a tourismdevelopment are valid, and reflect the currentposition of lending institutions. The taskforcedid; however identify that these justificationswere focused on initial project funding and didnot consider the quality of the resulting tourismproduct, ongoing sustainability of a project, ornecessarily consider the benefit or impact ofthe development on the tourism industry. Italso was noted that the ability to include aresidential component in a development wassecondary to the ability to strata title, althoughstill important, in achieving project finance.Correspondingly, the taskforce considered thatif residential components in tourismdevelopments are to be supported, this needsto be on a specific category of tourism siteonly, and subject to development andmanagement conditions to reduce the negativeimplications.The general category of social-managementjustifications were seen as potentially givingrise to competing interests and greaterresident/tourism impacts, without a high levelof confidence in the benefits, and as such werenot considered compelling.In respect to site-specific justifications, thetaskforce recognised that it was necessary fora framework to be established within whichproponents, the State and local government, inconsultation with and with assistance from theWAPC and Tourism WA, can evaluate theneed for retention of specific sites fortourism-only purposes. This determinationrequires assessment of the overall tourismcontext of a locality and is discussed further inthe taskforce recommendations, Part 1. It alsois acknowledged that while protection andfacilitation of development is required forhigh-value strategic tourism sites, where a sitehas a limited tourism value or potential, it isappropriate for it to be rezoned for mixed useor an alternative purpose.32 Tourism Planning Taskforce Report