Changing planning rules could alterface of Swansea forever

SWANSEA, a tiny town nestled on Tasmania’s iconic East Coast, is under threat from an incomprehensible development so unsuited to the region that longstanding planning rules need to be changed so it can be approved.

On April 24 a planning scheme amendment called a Specific Area Plan (SAP) was applied for by Cambria Green Agriculture and Tourism Management Pty Ltd, with a supporting “concept” masterplan of the proposed development of Cambria Green. The Glamorgan Spring Bay Council is currently considering this change.

Thanks to this masterplan, we know what Swansea could look like in the future. As you come out of town heading north: a four-storey hotel/ resort of 100 to 150 rooms on the ridge on the left; 240 fourstorey villas and units below the hotel, a health retreat with 80 rooms, palliative care unit and crematorium.

On the other side of Tasman Highway, you will drive past 139 modern threestorey units and a wedding and function centre all with no limit on the size of the footprint, right in front of the heritage-listed Cambria Homestead. Add an 18-hole golf course (plus another nine holes for good measure) and 20 more accommodation units and you can see how this proposal would change the face of Swansea forever.

Of serious concern is not just what the proponents are saying they want to do in their masterplan, it is understanding what the SAP will allow them (or any future owners of this property) to do if it is approved.

Because a masterplan is not a Development Application, no one will know the real nature of this development until an application is submitted, and any subsequent DAs could be very different to what’s currently in the masterplan.

In this context, the SAP is revealing. If approved, it will allow buildings to be 12 metres in height (currently they are capped at 8.5m for residential properties in the Rural Resource and Significant Agriculture zone, and 10m otherwise). Construction can be in any building materials and any colour (currently there are restrictions on materials and colours allowed). And setbacks will be reduced to 5 metres from most boundaries (currently the setbacks are 20m from most boundaries and farther in some instances).

An SAP should be drafted to sit over any developer’s DA to give guidance and constraint. Instead, this SAP delivers a whole-scale change of the rules in advance of a DA, allowing development way over and above what’s currently on the table.

The SAP reveals that it fails to apply controls on site coverage — the relationship of built area to land area. Which means there is no restriction of how much land of the “3100 hectares” of the Cambria estate can be developed.

Regardless of the proponent’s intentions, there is absolutely nothing within

the SAP to limit the size of development by Cambria Green or any future owner of this property. Nor is there anything in the SAP which limits the extent or proportion of the property’s prime agricultural land from being developed.

Here is where it gets intriguing. The proponents have publicly stated that an application for a development of the nature and scale as presented on the concept masterplan could be lodged and approved by the council under the current interim planning scheme.

It begs the question — what is the true purpose of the SAP and why then do the proponents seek it?

The proponents have stated that if the land were sold the SAP travels with the land — which could mean, if the land were sold, with the approved SAP over it, there is no requirement that the masterplan as proposed must be implemented. Therefore, something well beyond what is “proposed” could be put forward.

Any future DA will be discretionary, meaning it needs council assessment against the provisions of the planning scheme. The SAP (if approved) would become the planning tool against which the DA is assessed: a purposewritten, blank cheque which the developer can fill in with even more development and density than that currently proposed via the masterplan.

The lack of clarity, transparency and public engagement about the proposal is generating debate and raising many more questions than answers. This in turn is driving a sense of distrust, anger and fear within the community.

That it is not surprising. There has been no public exhibition of what the final development could look like, no opportunity for people to visualise and better understand what the proponents end goal is, and with no controls to ensure that any subsequent development applications are in accordance with the masterplan.

Still many more questions than answers.