❓ A parliamentary question regarding a proposed 17-storey apartment tower on the Raffles Hotel site and the Minister's stance on high-density housing, third-party appeal rights, and potential intervention in planning decisions. The Minister's response focuses on sustainability and well-designed high-density development.
AnsweredQoN 324Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to an article in the Sunday Times on 10 November in which the minister claims that Perth is being ruined by high-density housing developments. (1) Does the minister share the view of thousands of residents in my electorate that their city will be ruined if a 17-storey apartment tower is built on the Raffles Hotel site? (2) Since the minister has yet to introduce legislation allowing third parties the right of appeal over planning decisions, will she intervene to prevent redevelopment going ahead if the proposal gets council approval? If not, why not? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) I do not know whether the member read the same article that I read. I will explain where the report came from. I gave an address on the issue of sustainability to the Planning Institute of Australia. The Gallop Labor Government has adopted a sustainability agenda, about which it is very serious. The point I made to the institute is that it is time to move beyond the rhetoric and implement real principles of sustainability in our developments. I made the point - perhaps this is where the member has become confused, because it is a complex point - that the argument that by increasing densities, we achieve a positive environmental outcome because we will have a more compact city and the developments will be closer to the centre of town - Mr M.F. Board interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: The member is correct, it would provide better public transport links. The member for Murdoch is learning. We will keep answering these questions and he will become a convert yet. He will not argue that people should have freeways and buses; he will be right on track for our train project. The point I was making was not that high rise developments per se were bad; it was a more complex point. Increasing density alone does not deliver positive environmental outcomes. When we plan, a raft of issues must be dealt with correctly, including solar access and ventilation. In many instances, poorly designed medium and high-density developments do not have these environmental benefits. My argument is not in any shape or form an argument against medium and high-density development; it is an argument that that type of development must be done better.
(1) Does the minister share the view of thousands of residents in my electorate that their city will be ruined if a 17-storey apartment tower is built on the Raffles Hotel site? (2) Since the minister has yet to introduce legislation allowing third parties the right of appeal over planning decisions, will she intervene to prevent redevelopment going ahead if the proposal gets council approval? If not, why not? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(2) I do not know whether the member read the same article that I read. I will explain where the report came from. I gave an address on the issue of sustainability to the Planning Institute of Australia. The Gallop Labor Government has adopted a sustainability agenda, about which it is very serious. The point I made to the institute is that it is time to move beyond the rhetoric and implement real principles of sustainability in our developments. I made the point - perhaps this is where the member has become confused, because it is a complex point - that the argument that by increasing densities, we achieve a positive environmental outcome because we will have a more compact city and the developments will be closer to the centre of town - Mr M.F. Board interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: The member is correct, it would provide better public transport links. The member for Murdoch is learning. We will keep answering these questions and he will become a convert yet. He will not argue that people should have freeways and buses; he will be right on track for our train project. The point I was making was not that high rise developments per se were bad; it was a more complex point. Increasing density alone does not deliver positive environmental outcomes. When we plan, a raft of issues must be dealt with correctly, including solar access and ventilation. In many instances, poorly designed medium and high-density developments do not have these environmental benefits. My argument is not in any shape or form an argument against medium and high-density development; it is an argument that that type of development must be done better.
(2) Since the minister has yet to introduce legislation allowing third parties the right of appeal over planning decisions, will she intervene to prevent redevelopment going ahead if the proposal gets council approval? If not, why not? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(2) I do not know whether the member read the same article that I read. I will explain where the report came from. I gave an address on the issue of sustainability to the Planning Institute of Australia. The Gallop Labor Government has adopted a sustainability agenda, about which it is very serious. The point I made to the institute is that it is time to move beyond the rhetoric and implement real principles of sustainability in our developments. I made the point - perhaps this is where the member has become confused, because it is a complex point - that the argument that by increasing densities, we achieve a positive environmental outcome because we will have a more compact city and the developments will be closer to the centre of town - Mr M.F. Board interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: The member is correct, it would provide better public transport links. The member for Murdoch is learning. We will keep answering these questions and he will become a convert yet. He will not argue that people should have freeways and buses; he will be right on track for our train project. The point I was making was not that high rise developments per se were bad; it was a more complex point. Increasing density alone does not deliver positive environmental outcomes. When we plan, a raft of issues must be dealt with correctly, including solar access and ventilation. In many instances, poorly designed medium and high-density developments do not have these environmental benefits. My argument is not in any shape or form an argument against medium and high-density development; it is an argument that that type of development must be done better.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(2) I do not know whether the member read the same article that I read. I will explain where the report came from. I gave an address on the issue of sustainability to the Planning Institute of Australia. The Gallop Labor Government has adopted a sustainability agenda, about which it is very serious. The point I made to the institute is that it is time to move beyond the rhetoric and implement real principles of sustainability in our developments. I made the point - perhaps this is where the member has become confused, because it is a complex point - that the argument that by increasing densities, we achieve a positive environmental outcome because we will have a more compact city and the developments will be closer to the centre of town - Mr M.F. Board interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: The member is correct, it would provide better public transport links. The member for Murdoch is learning. We will keep answering these questions and he will become a convert yet. He will not argue that people should have freeways and buses; he will be right on track for our train project. The point I was making was not that high rise developments per se were bad; it was a more complex point. Increasing density alone does not deliver positive environmental outcomes. When we plan, a raft of issues must be dealt with correctly, including solar access and ventilation. In many instances, poorly designed medium and high-density developments do not have these environmental benefits. My argument is not in any shape or form an argument against medium and high-density development; it is an argument that that type of development must be done better.
(1)-(2) I do not know whether the member read the same article that I read. I will explain where the report came from. I gave an address on the issue of sustainability to the Planning Institute of Australia. The Gallop Labor Government has adopted a sustainability agenda, about which it is very serious. The point I made to the institute is that it is time to move beyond the rhetoric and implement real principles of sustainability in our developments. I made the point - perhaps this is where the member has become confused, because it is a complex point - that the argument that by increasing densities, we achieve a positive environmental outcome because we will have a more compact city and the developments will be closer to the centre of town - Mr M.F. Board interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: The member is correct, it would provide better public transport links. The member for Murdoch is learning. We will keep answering these questions and he will become a convert yet. He will not argue that people should have freeways and buses; he will be right on track for our train project. The point I was making was not that high rise developments per se were bad; it was a more complex point. Increasing density alone does not deliver positive environmental outcomes. When we plan, a raft of issues must be dealt with correctly, including solar access and ventilation. In many instances, poorly designed medium and high-density developments do not have these environmental benefits. My argument is not in any shape or form an argument against medium and high-density development; it is an argument that that type of development must be done better.
Mr M.F. Board interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: The member is correct, it would provide better public transport links. The member for Murdoch is learning. We will keep answering these questions and he will become a convert yet. He will not argue that people should have freeways and buses; he will be right on track for our train project. The point I was making was not that high rise developments per se were bad; it was a more complex point. Increasing density alone does not deliver positive environmental outcomes. When we plan, a raft of issues must be dealt with correctly, including solar access and ventilation. In many instances, poorly designed medium and high-density developments do not have these environmental benefits. My argument is not in any shape or form an argument against medium and high-density development; it is an argument that that type of development must be done better.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: The member is correct, it would provide better public transport links. The member for Murdoch is learning. We will keep answering these questions and he will become a convert yet. He will not argue that people should have freeways and buses; he will be right on track for our train project. The point I was making was not that high rise developments per se were bad; it was a more complex point. Increasing density alone does not deliver positive environmental outcomes. When we plan, a raft of issues must be dealt with correctly, including solar access and ventilation. In many instances, poorly designed medium and high-density developments do not have these environmental benefits. My argument is not in any shape or form an argument against medium and high-density development; it is an argument that that type of development must be done better.
(1) Does the minister share the view of thousands of residents in my electorate that their city will be ruined if a 17-storey apartment tower is built on the Raffles Hotel site? (2) Since the minister has yet to introduce legislation allowing third parties the right of appeal over planning decisions, will she intervene to prevent redevelopment going ahead if the proposal gets council approval? If not, why not? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(2) I do not know whether the member read the same article that I read. I will explain where the report came from. I gave an address on the issue of sustainability to the Planning Institute of Australia. The Gallop Labor Government has adopted a sustainability agenda, about which it is very serious. The point I made to the institute is that it is time to move beyond the rhetoric and implement real principles of sustainability in our developments. I made the point - perhaps this is where the member has become confused, because it is a complex point - that the argument that by increasing densities, we achieve a positive environmental outcome because we will have a more compact city and the developments will be closer to the centre of town - Mr M.F. Board interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: The member is correct, it would provide better public transport links. The member for Murdoch is learning. We will keep answering these questions and he will become a convert yet. He will not argue that people should have freeways and buses; he will be right on track for our train project. The point I was making was not that high rise developments per se were bad; it was a more complex point. Increasing density alone does not deliver positive environmental outcomes. When we plan, a raft of issues must be dealt with correctly, including solar access and ventilation. In many instances, poorly designed medium and high-density developments do not have these environmental benefits. My argument is not in any shape or form an argument against medium and high-density development; it is an argument that that type of development must be done better.
(2) Since the minister has yet to introduce legislation allowing third parties the right of appeal over planning decisions, will she intervene to prevent redevelopment going ahead if the proposal gets council approval? If not, why not? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(2) I do not know whether the member read the same article that I read. I will explain where the report came from. I gave an address on the issue of sustainability to the Planning Institute of Australia. The Gallop Labor Government has adopted a sustainability agenda, about which it is very serious. The point I made to the institute is that it is time to move beyond the rhetoric and implement real principles of sustainability in our developments. I made the point - perhaps this is where the member has become confused, because it is a complex point - that the argument that by increasing densities, we achieve a positive environmental outcome because we will have a more compact city and the developments will be closer to the centre of town - Mr M.F. Board interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: The member is correct, it would provide better public transport links. The member for Murdoch is learning. We will keep answering these questions and he will become a convert yet. He will not argue that people should have freeways and buses; he will be right on track for our train project. The point I was making was not that high rise developments per se were bad; it was a more complex point. Increasing density alone does not deliver positive environmental outcomes. When we plan, a raft of issues must be dealt with correctly, including solar access and ventilation. In many instances, poorly designed medium and high-density developments do not have these environmental benefits. My argument is not in any shape or form an argument against medium and high-density development; it is an argument that that type of development must be done better.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(2) I do not know whether the member read the same article that I read. I will explain where the report came from. I gave an address on the issue of sustainability to the Planning Institute of Australia. The Gallop Labor Government has adopted a sustainability agenda, about which it is very serious. The point I made to the institute is that it is time to move beyond the rhetoric and implement real principles of sustainability in our developments. I made the point - perhaps this is where the member has become confused, because it is a complex point - that the argument that by increasing densities, we achieve a positive environmental outcome because we will have a more compact city and the developments will be closer to the centre of town - Mr M.F. Board interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: The member is correct, it would provide better public transport links. The member for Murdoch is learning. We will keep answering these questions and he will become a convert yet. He will not argue that people should have freeways and buses; he will be right on track for our train project. The point I was making was not that high rise developments per se were bad; it was a more complex point. Increasing density alone does not deliver positive environmental outcomes. When we plan, a raft of issues must be dealt with correctly, including solar access and ventilation. In many instances, poorly designed medium and high-density developments do not have these environmental benefits. My argument is not in any shape or form an argument against medium and high-density development; it is an argument that that type of development must be done better.
(1)-(2) I do not know whether the member read the same article that I read. I will explain where the report came from. I gave an address on the issue of sustainability to the Planning Institute of Australia. The Gallop Labor Government has adopted a sustainability agenda, about which it is very serious. The point I made to the institute is that it is time to move beyond the rhetoric and implement real principles of sustainability in our developments. I made the point - perhaps this is where the member has become confused, because it is a complex point - that the argument that by increasing densities, we achieve a positive environmental outcome because we will have a more compact city and the developments will be closer to the centre of town - Mr M.F. Board interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: The member is correct, it would provide better public transport links. The member for Murdoch is learning. We will keep answering these questions and he will become a convert yet. He will not argue that people should have freeways and buses; he will be right on track for our train project. The point I was making was not that high rise developments per se were bad; it was a more complex point. Increasing density alone does not deliver positive environmental outcomes. When we plan, a raft of issues must be dealt with correctly, including solar access and ventilation. In many instances, poorly designed medium and high-density developments do not have these environmental benefits. My argument is not in any shape or form an argument against medium and high-density development; it is an argument that that type of development must be done better.
Mr M.F. Board interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: The member is correct, it would provide better public transport links. The member for Murdoch is learning. We will keep answering these questions and he will become a convert yet. He will not argue that people should have freeways and buses; he will be right on track for our train project. The point I was making was not that high rise developments per se were bad; it was a more complex point. Increasing density alone does not deliver positive environmental outcomes. When we plan, a raft of issues must be dealt with correctly, including solar access and ventilation. In many instances, poorly designed medium and high-density developments do not have these environmental benefits. My argument is not in any shape or form an argument against medium and high-density development; it is an argument that that type of development must be done better.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: The member is correct, it would provide better public transport links. The member for Murdoch is learning. We will keep answering these questions and he will become a convert yet. He will not argue that people should have freeways and buses; he will be right on track for our train project. The point I was making was not that high rise developments per se were bad; it was a more complex point. Increasing density alone does not deliver positive environmental outcomes. When we plan, a raft of issues must be dealt with correctly, including solar access and ventilation. In many instances, poorly designed medium and high-density developments do not have these environmental benefits. My argument is not in any shape or form an argument against medium and high-density development; it is an argument that that type of development must be done better.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.