GROWING PAINS

Councils clash over land for housing

GREATER Hobart councils are in dispute over the supply of land to meet the high demand for housing.

Land acquired in Brighton by the Education Department for a new high school had been earmarked by the council as residential development land to meet growth forecasts. Brighton Council has asked all 12 southern councils to back a proposal to extend the urban growth boundary for an 11ha block at 69 Brighton Rd, because it said the supply of land for homes had been hit by the government acquisition. But the Hobart City Council will on Monday vote on a staff report to not support the proposal.

THE loss of a significant parcel of land earmarked for future housing, which was compulsorily acquired by the state government for a new high school, has triggered a stoush between councils about the best plan for future growth.

Land acquired in Brighton by the Education Department was previously earmarked by the Brighton Council as future residential development land that would be required to meet residential growth forecasts.

Brighton Council has asked all 12 southern councils to back a proposal to extend the urban growth boundary for an 11ha block at 69 Brighton Rd because it said the supply of residential land had been displaced by the government acquiring the new school land.

Any final decision would have to be made by the Tasmanian Planning Commission.

The land at 69 Brighton Rd, which could accommodate up to 170 homes, is zoned rural resource and is directly adjacent to the urban growth boundary.

Created in 2011, the greater Hobart urban growth boundary is a line drawn on a map that aims to set the physical extent for a 20-year supply of residential land, with the aim of a 50/50 greenfield to infill development ratio.

The Brighton Structure Plan 2018 showed there was inadequate land within the border to accommodate the area’s long-term housing needs as it had reached 80 per cent of its infill development target in the first 10 years of the plan.

At the Hobart City Council meeting on Monday, it has been recommended council not support Brighton’s proposal. “There is a cost for that extension, particularly on the urban fringe, with the need to expand physical and social services and the impact on vehicle congestion,” the HCC report said. “While Brighton Council has made a case for the change it is these costs that have not been fully accounted for.”

Instead, the council would support a wider review of the Southern Regional Land Use Strategy, which takes into consideration the wider potential impacts on traffic and new social and physical infrastructure to accommodate growth.

HCC planning committee chair Helen Burnet said a significant border expansion request required a strategic, rather than piecemeal, response. She said she would request an urgent meeting with the incoming planning minister to discuss the issue.

In February, the Clarence City Council voted to write to the Planning Minister asking for an extension to the border at Sandford to accommodate a future residential subdivision.