Planners’ wires crossed
Hobart council rejects projects it should have approved
HOBART City Council has been forced into a planning backflip after it emerged its officers have been recommending the rejection of developments which should have been approved.
By counting applications for strata developments as a single lot, rather than separate titles, the council underestimated the density of a number of applications and refused a number of them when they in fact complied with the council’s standards.
The basis for this mistake was a Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal decision earlier this year that ruled new lots should be “in harmony” with the surrounding area.
The tribunal ruled that lots in new developments should be about the same size of those within a 100m radius.
A misinterpretation of the rules led to a number of applications made to council being recommended for rejection.
The error was detailed at the City Planning Committee meeting this month, where three of the five applications that were recommended for refusal were reversed.
Alderman Tanya Denison — who pointed out the flaw months earlier — said she felt vindicated by the backflip.
“I’m so happy, it’s been something that I have been arguing with the council for the last three months,” she said.
“It’s great news for future residential opportunities for our city, it provides more options.”
The changed applications include a proposal to develop the old Jet Service Station in Sandy Bay Rd — where individual strata titles were not originally included as separate sites when it was first considered by the committee — one at 25 Elphinstone Rd where its proposed density of 311sq m was considered not to be compatible with the density of the surrounding area and one at 23 Summerhill Rd.
The one at Sandy Bay Rd was initially judged too large for the nearby area, despite a complex across the road having numerous apartments.
A proposal for three dwellings at 479 Churchill Ave will be considered next year, while an application for two dwellings at 22 Norfolk Crescent was rejected, with no further action to be taken.
HCC general manager Nick Heath said no additional legal costs were incurred by the council as a result of the misinterpretation.
“The council is pleased that [the tribunal] has clarified its interpretation on this complex planning control for the General Residential Zone and that councils, applicants and neighbours of future developments have greater clarity on this matter,” he said.