Weakening your say On planning
Few know the extent of changes and fewer understand them, says
THE Tasmanian government is mounting twin assaults on the Tasmanian planning system that will make it less democratic and more slanted in favour of big developers. Not content with ramming through undemocratic major projects legislation last year, the government intends to weaken the planning appeals process and fast-track its statewide planning scheme, shutting the community out of having a say.
Peter Gutwein is silent on these plans, but they will weaken Tasmania’s planning system at its foundations and further undermine community and small business operators’ faith in the system at the expense of quick bucks for large corporations.
It appears the government has done everything it can to hide the proposed changes to the planning appeals tribunal. The only document released in the consultation process was a 121-page Draft Bill, no explanatory document on what it aimed to achieve. Most people aware of the Draft Bill would not have read it and few would have understood it. The government did not previously flag these changes with the community. It released the draft on December 21, when most people were on leave or distracted by Christmas. For legislation with such a high level of public interest, this is just about unprecedented in modern Tasmanian political history.
The Draft Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Amendments Bill proposes costs orders at the outset of planning appeals. This would require an appellant to pay (or demonstrate ability to pay) the cost of their opponent’s defence. For an appeal such as the recently concluded Rosny Hill appeal this might have required the community group to pay more than $50,000 upfront on top of their own costs. The planning appeals tribunal has existed for decades without security for cost orders. It will be a fundamental change to the fairness of the system. Costs have nearly always been ordered to be paid by each party, so it seems unnecessary and very unfair to require one party to pay a security deposit before the appeal.
Appeals aren’t just by community groups and conservation groups like TCT. Small businesses and individuals rely on this relatively easy-to-access tribunal to challenge bad decisions by councils which, as we know, do happen.
By introducing cost orders, the only ones advantaged are mega-corporations such as the Shandong Dongming Petrochemical Group, the multi-billion dollar parent company sold the prime waterfront land at Kangaroo Bay without a tender process.
Another proposed change would greatly widen the tribunal’s power to dismiss appeals, eg if it “involves a trivial matter or amount”. The government has provided no reason for this change.
The proposed amendments to the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act (LUPA), tabled in parliament three days before the election was called, will fast track Local Provisions Schedules in order to bring the Statewide Planning Scheme into effect more quickly. This means less community input on local character and greater ministerial power. These changes are a massive power grab for the government and a broken promise by Peter Gutwein that the community would have meaningful input to planning rules in their area.
The proposed changes to the “substantial modifications” provisions of the Local Provisions Schedules could provide an unfair shortcut for developments that don’t meet the current planning scheme requirements. Cambria near Swansea, Robbins Island wind farm or Westbury prison could take this path. Proponents could make a proposal to the local council for a zoning change covering their development that could be deemed by the Tasmanian Planning Commission to be a “substantial modification”. This could be approved and come into effect along with the rest of the Local Provisions Schedule. A proponent could then lodge a development application and gain approval under new zoning provisions before public comment or scrutiny by the Tasmanian Planning Commission on the new zoning.
The proposed amendments to Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 add even greater complexity, confusion and uncertainty to already complex legislative processes.
With the proposed new substantial modifications provision, the new planning rule comes into effect before community consultation. Some early developments can be approved against these new rules. Following consultation the rule may be changed to prohibit very similar developments.
With other proposed amendments, some elements of the Statewide Planning Scheme can be approved solely by the minister to be incorporated into existing planning schemes, prior to the Statewide Planning Scheme coming into effect. Some elements of existing planning schemes can be approved as part of the Local Provisions Schedule without additional consultation. There is also a proposal to have interim amendments to the Statewide Planning Scheme (lasting up to 12 months) where it is deemed urgent but there is little limit on what may be considered urgent. If you are confused, so am I. I doubt
more than a few bureaucrats, planners and consultants will fully understand the processes. These changes will make life harder for the community, the building industry and small businesses. It will undoubtedly deter many in the community from participating in the processes of reviewing their draft Local Provisions Schedule. Just as with the major projects legislation, the government has not explained the need for most of its changes. The reason given for many of the proposed changes to the Land Use Planning and
Approvals Act is merely that they may speed up the process of finalising the Statewide Planning Scheme. There is no evidence there is currently a problem or that stakeholders are calling for these changes.
The Tasmanian Greens and Labor Party provided a written statement during the election opposing these changes. The Liberal Party made no statement on these issues during the election.