Cradle Coast Regional Planning Initiative · 2020-01-30 · Cradle Coast Region to commence from...

Cradle Coast Regional Planning Initiative

c/- PO Box 338

Burnie

Tasmanian 7320

The Executive Commissioner Tasmanian Planning Commission GPO Box 1691 Hobart TAS 7001 9th July 2014 Dear Sir Joint Report in accordance with section 30J land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 in relation to the Interim Planning Schemes of the Cradle Coast Region.

The Minister for Planning declared an interim planning scheme for each municipal district within the Cradle Coast Region to commence from 19th October 2013.

Each of the declared interim planning schemes was concurrently notified in accordance with section 30H Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 from 19th October 1993 and a period of two months allowed for community consideration and written comment.

A total of 260 individual representations were received during the notification period.

I am pleased to advise the planning authorities of the Cradle Council Region have each determined to provide to the Tasmanian Planning Commission a report containing the views and opinions of the planning authority in relation to the merits and impacts of the representations made on the notified interim planning scheme for their municipal district.

The views and opinions of each planning authority are combined into a joint report in accordance with LUPAA s30J for planning schemes that were concurrently notified.

The decision of each Council has instructed that the Cradle Coast Regional Planning Initiative Steering Committee compile the s30J Joint Report, and provide it to the Tasmanian Planning Commission.

The s30J Joint Report will be provided in digital format under separate cover to the Tasmanian Planning Commission.

Provision of the s30J Joint Report is a significant milestone in the planning scheme reform program for the Cradle Coast Region.

The Report marks the conclusion of the independent actions required of the planning authorities within the Region under the Memorandum of Understanding.

The final task was to prepare and implement replacement planning schemes that are consistent to the mandatory format and structure provided in Planning Directive No1 and harmonised in relation to the purpose and content of local provisions on matters that do not have to be different between the planning schemes of adjacent municipal districts.

The actions and commitment by all of the planning authorities to attain this outcome in a constructive and cooperated manner remains a hallmark of the approach taken within the Region on planning reform.

The views and opinions expressed within the 30J Joint Report continue to evidence a high level of consistency and agreement between planning authorities of the Region.

The Joint Report provides constructive observation and advice to assist the Tasmanian Planning Commission in determining representations and in approving a final form of planning scheme that is strategically and operationally robust.

The Region is aware of the current considerations at State level for further reforms within the land use planning system, including for transition to a single state wide planning scheme.

However, the Region urges that the interim planning scheme process for the Cradle Coast Region not be terminated or unduly delayed in anticipation of a possible replacement model.

The Region and the State have both invested considerable financial, political, and technical capital in preparing and providing the interim planning schemes.

The Region has initiated a statutory process to invite the community to consider and comment on the declared interim planning schemes; and the statutory requirements in LUPAA allow that those who have made representations can anticipate that the subsequent processes will be now be finalised.

It is requested that the Tasmanian Planning Commission receive the Joint Report and advise its requirements for continuing the process for final determination as planning schemes in accordance with LUPAA s30N.

Yours faithfully

Charles Arnold Chair – Cradle Coast Regional Planning Initiative Steering Committee

Cradle Coast Region Interim Planning Schemes

Joint Report under s30J Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 on Representations made in relation

to Common Provisions and Local Provisions in the –

Burnie Interim Planning Scheme 2013

Central Coast Interim Planning Scheme 2013

Circular Head Interim Planning Scheme 2013

Devonport Interim Planning Scheme 2013

Kentish Interim Planning Scheme 2013

King Island Interim Planning Scheme 2013

Latrobe Interim Planning Scheme 2013

Waratah Wynyard Interim Planning Scheme 2013

West Coast Interim Planning Scheme 2013

Prepared by –

Burnie City Council

Central Coast Council

Circular Head Council

Devonport City Council

Kentish Council

King Island Council

Latrobe Council

Waratah Wynyard Council

West Coast Council

June 2014

30J Joint Report on Representations in relation to the notified Interim Planning Schemes of the Cradle Coast Region – 30th June 2014 Page | 1

Cradle Coast Region Interim Planning Schemes

Joint Report under s30J Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 on Representations made in relation

to Common Provisions and Local Provisions in the –










Prepared by –

Burnie City Council




Kentish Council

King Island Council

Latrobe Council

Waratah Wynyard Council

West Coast Council

June 2014


Table of Contents

Page

Introduction 3

Table 1 – Principles for response on representations 9

Table 2 – Persons making Representations 15

Table 3 – Persons making representations (by municipal district and issues) 16

Representations and response in relation to interim planning schemes

Table 4 –Format and Operation 34

Table 5 - Purpose and Objectives 53

Table 6 - Administration 55

Table 7 - Exemptions 60

Table 8 - Permit Pathways 74

Table 9 Special Provisions 95

Table 10 - General Residential Zone 106

Table 11 - Inner Residential Zone 147

Table 12 - Low Density Residential Zone 148

Table 13 - Rural Living Zone 156

Table 14 - Environmental Living Zone 189

Table 15 - Urban Mixed Use Zone 200

Table 16 - Village Zone 203

Table 17 - Community Purpose Zone 206

Table 18 - Recreation Zone 214

Table 19 - Open Space Zone 217

Table 20 - Local Business Zone 225

Table 21 - General Business Zone 234

Table 22 - Central Business Zone 238

Table 23 – Commercial Zone 242

Table 24 – Light Industrial Zone 251

Table 25 – General industrial Zone 261

Table 26 – Rural Resource Zone 269

Table 27 – Significant Agricultural Zone 370

Table 28 - Utilities Zone 371

Table 29 – Environmental Management Zone 383

Table 30 – Major Tourism Zone 401

Table 31 – Port and Marine Zone 402

Table 32 – Particular Purpose Zone 406

Table 33 – Codes 407

Table 34 – Code E1 Bushfire-prone Areas 408

Table 35 – Code E2 Airport Management 417

Table 36 – Code E4 Change in Ground Level 430

Table 37 – Code E5 Local Heritage Code 434

Table 38 – Code E6 Hazard Management 446

Table 39 – Code E7 Signs 451

Table 40 – Code E8 Telecommunication Infrastructure 454

Table 41 – Code E9 Traffic Generating Use and Parking Code 456

Table 42 – Water and Waterways Code 464

Table 43 – Code E11 (Devonport IPS 2013) 471

Table 44 – Specific Area Plans 473

F4 Turners Beach SAP (central Coast IPS) 473

F3 Stony Rise SAP (Devonport IPS) 475

F1 Cradle Gateway SAP (Kentish IPS) 475

F2 Port Sorell SAP (Latrobe IPS) 475

Boat Harbour and Sisters Beach SAP (Waratah Wynyard IPS) 476

Table 45 - Appendices 478

Table 46 – Additional Matters 479

Proposed Electricity Transmission Infrastructure Protection Code 479

Appendix 1 – Council Motions to provide 30J Joint Report 483

Appendix 2 – Substantive Modifications suggested for the interim planning

scheme Ordinances.

487


Introduction

In October 2013 the Tasmanian Minister for Planning declared an Interim Planning

Scheme in accordance with s30F Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 for each

of the nine municipal districts of the Cradle Coast Region of northwest Tasmania.

The Minister’s declaration effectively repealed all former planning schemes applying

for the municipal districts and replaced them with an Interim Planning Scheme.

Each Interim Planning Scheme became the operational and enforceable planning

instrument for the applicable municipal district.

A period for community consideration and comment concurrently commenced with

declaration of the schemes.

The purpose of this report is to identify each of the representations received, and to

set out a joint response by the planning authorities of the Cradle Coast Region on

each issue in each representation, including whether a change to the interim planning

scheme may be justified.

Interim planning schemes

A planning scheme is enforceable regulation prepared and approved under the Land

Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 for the purpose of prescribing how land in a

municipal district is to be used, developed, protected and conserved.

Toward Consistency – A Guide to the Cradle Coast Interim Planning Schemes October

2013 provides explanation for the statutory requirements and for the strategy and

policy considerations underpinning provisions in the interim planning schemes.

An interim planning scheme is a particular form of planning scheme in accordance

with LUPAA s30E.

The primary purpose of an IPS is to translate a former planning scheme into a

common format and structure, and to align the purpose of regulatory provisions to a

regional land use strategy.

The objective for an IPS is to provide greater consistency and coordination between

the purpose and provisions of the planning schemes applying for adjacent municipal

districts within the Cradle Coast Region.

Each interim planning scheme is required to –

a) Be consistent with and likely to further the objectives and outcomes of the

Cradle Coast Regional Land Use Strategy 2010 - 2030 (CCR LUS)

The purpose and provisions of a planning scheme must be based on sound

strategic planning and must further the objectives and be coordinated with

the strategies and policies applying for land and resource management in

Tasmania.

Each interim planning scheme must be aligned to the regional strategic

perspective for land use planning.

It is not the function of an interim planning scheme to render significant

strategic change, including in the purpose for which land was assigned under

a zone in the former planning scheme.

The IPS for each of the CCR municipal districts generally retain the purpose

for which land was zoned under the applicable former planning scheme.

Change is only made if reasonably required for compliance to the CCR LUS.

The IPS process does not allow a wholesale review of local land use strategy

and a corresponding change in the purpose or nature of the manner in which

land may be utilised.

The IPS process does not allow opportunity for rationalisation and correction

of zone assignment and boundary location under the former planning

scheme.

b) Contain all of the common provisions for issues relating to the use,

development, protection or conservation of land, or for procedural matters

arising from operation of a planning process, as detailed by a Planning

Directive as necessary for consistency between all municipal areas.

Common mandatory provisions are requirements a planning scheme must

contain.

The common mandatory provisions for the interim planning scheme are –

(i) The format and structure of the planning scheme ordinance as

required by Planning Directive No 1.

The common mandatory provisions establish the sequence and

general expression of the provisions in an IPS, and including –

a. Part A – Clauses 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 for citation and for

identifying purpose of the interim planning scheme;

b. Part B – clauses 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 7.0 and 8.0 which provide for

definitions, exemptions, operation, and permit

requirements;

c. Part C – clause 9.0 which provide compliance requirements

for change of existing non-conforming use, boundary

adjustments, demolition, and subdivision; and

d. Part D – which the zone purpose statement for each of the

zones described in clauses 10 – 32 inclusive

(ii) The provisions in clause 10.4.3 for development standards for single

dwellings in the General Residential zone of the interim planning

scheme as notified in accordance with Planning Directive No 4; and

from 28th

February 2014, the provisions in 10.4.1 to 10.4.8 inclusive

relating to development standards for single and multiple dwellings

as required by Planning Directive No 4.1;

(iii) The provisions in Code E1 for Bushfire-prone Areas as required by

Planning Directive No 5;

(iv) The provisions in Table E9A to Code E9 – Traffic Generating Use and Parking Code relating to provision of parking for single dwelling and

multiple dwelling development in the General Residential zone as

required by Planning Directive No 4.1

(v) Optional common provisions as requirements a planning scheme is

to contain if the matters addressed by the provision are relevant to

the circumstances and conditions of the municipal district.

There are no optional common provisions applicable for the IPS of

the Cradle Coast Region.

c) Contain local provisions that are overriding local provisions.

Local provisions are requirements that are particular to an interim planning

scheme.

Overriding local provisions are requirements that prevail in the interim

planning scheme against a common mandatory provision if there is a conflict

with a common mandatory provision.

The overriding local provisions in each interim planning scheme are

identified by a Planning Purpose Notice; and are –

(i) with respect to any provision in Code E1 – Bushfire-prone Areas

a. Code E3.0 – Clearing and Conversion of Vegetation;

b. Code E5.0 – Local Heritage; and

c. Code E10.0 Water and Waterways ; and

(ii) with respect to any provision in Clause 10.0 General Residential

zone

a. Clause 10.4.12 Setback of sensitive use development

b. Code E3.0 – Clearing and Conversion of Vegetation;

c. Code E4.0 – Change in Ground Level;

d. Code E5.0 – Local Heritage;

e. Code E6.0 – Hazard Management;

f. Code E10.0 Water and Waterways; and

d) Contain provisions that are conflicting local provisions

A conflicting local provision is a requirement that is not inconsistent with an

overriding local provision unless specified in a Planning Purpose Notice.

There are no conflicting local provisions in any interim planning scheme of

the Cradle Coast Region.

e) Contain local provisions that are not inconsistent with common provisions

and overriding local provisions.

Local provisions form the larger part of the provisions in the interim planning

schemes.

Local provisions may be in two forms –

(i) Ordinance provisions


Ordinance provisions are the written instructions for how the

interim planning scheme is to operate; and for the matters for

assessment and decision if the interim planning scheme applies for

a use or development

The local provisions in the IPS of the Cradle Coast Region may be

categorised as –

a. Regional provision

A Cradle Coast Region local provision template has ensured

the form, expression, purpose, and requirements in local

provisions are the same between all of the declared IPS

unless there is a very compelling reason to be different.

Local provisions derived from the Cradle Coast template

planning scheme are identified as common regional

provisions (RP) for the purpose of this Report.

The majority of local provisions in each interim planning

scheme are common with those in each of the other

planning schemes.

b. Local provisions

Several interim planning schemes contain local provisions

that are unique to that planning scheme.

Such provisions are found as Codes (DIPS 2013) and as

Specific Area Plans in the CCIPS 2013, DIPS 2013, and LIPS

2013

Representations relating to provisions that are unique to

an individual interim planning scheme are identified as

local provision (LP) matters for the purpose of this report.

(ii) Planning Scheme maps

Planning scheme maps indicate the land area to which provisions

apply.

There are two main categories of maps –

a. Zone maps

The statutory process for preparation of interim planning

schemes required conversion from the zone applying

under the former planning scheme into the zone with the

most corresponding purpose within the range of zones

provided in the template in Planning Directive No1.

IPS zone maps must match in purpose the zone maps

included with the former planning scheme. There is very

limited opportunity within an IPS to change the purpose

for which land may be used.

b. Particular provision maps

These maps depict factors called in to account by a

particular provision, such as in Code E3.0 for areas of

landscape or scenic value, and by Code E6 for areas of

landslide risk.

Particular purpose maps are introduced into IPS as a

requirement of the CCR LUS to more adequately address

natural hazards.

Notification of Interim Planning Schemes

A statutory opportunity in accordance with LUPAA s30H commenced on 19th

October

2013 for the community to consider and make comment on any aspect of the interim

planning schemes.

The notification commenced on the same date on which each of the IPS became an

operational planning scheme in accordance with the Ministerial declaration under

LUPAA s30F.

The process for notification, including publication notices, was combined in

accordance with LUPAA s30H (7) into a single process because each of the nine

interim planning scheme was declared and notified on the same day.

Written representations on in relation to all or any of the interim planning schemes

were to be received by 20th

December 2013.

A representation is a written statement of facts or reasons in support of or in

opposition to the interim planning scheme.

The particular requirements of LUPAA s30I allow that a representation is to be in

relation to the statutory function and content of an IPS. These are the matters of

common and local provisions, and changes required for consistency to the CCR LUS.

Representations should not extend to matters that more generally discuss the

purpose and practice of the Tasmanian land use planning system; or the adequacy or

otherwise, and the need for change, in the strategic intent and operational provisions

of a former planning scheme, including in the purpose for which land is zoned.

Representations received

The statutory notification period attracted a total of 260 individual representations.

Some representations made the same submissions separately to each planning

authority, and have been identified as individual submissions. The net effect is that in

the total of 260, some 79 contain replica matters.

Each representation has been assigned a unique reference number1.

Table 2 identifies each of the persons making a representation.

Many representations deal with two or more separate matters.

There are 797 separate issues raised within the representations.

Each issue has been assigned a unique reference number.

The majority of representations may be classified as an objection in that there is an

expressed dissatisfaction with the purpose or outcome intended, or a desire that the

IPS be modified.

1 Some references are numeric and some are alpha-numeric. The difference reflects the

sequence of registration and does not imply any distinction in the status or treatment of a

representation

Several the representations may be described as raising matters that are concerned

with the content or outcome of an IPS as a replacement planning scheme; but which

cannot accurately be said to be matters in relation to an IPS as intended by LUPAA

s30I.

The distribution of representations by municipal district is –

Municipal District Representations Received

Burnie City 33

Central Coast 52

Circular Head 37

Devonport City 34

Kentish 31

King Island 13

Latrobe 14

Waratah Wynyard 27

West Coast 17

Total 260

Process for Consideration of Representations

The matters raised in each representation must be considered and taken into account

before a decision to finalise an interim planning scheme is made.

The consideration of representations is made initially by the planning authorities of

the Cradle Coast Region who are to provide the Tasmanian Planning Commission with

advice on the merits of each matter and the impact of that matter on operation of

the IPS; and whether it is appropriate to consider modifying the interim planning

scheme.

The TPC is subsequently required to review the advice from the planning authorities

and to consider each representation before making a decision on whether to

approve, modify or reject the IPS as a final planning scheme.

Views and opinion of planning authorities

LUPAA 30I requires that a planning authority to which a representation has been

made in relation to a provision that is common to all other interim planning schemes

must provide a copy of that representation to each of the other planning authorities

which notified an interim planning scheme on the same day.

LUPAA s 30J requires a planning authority that has notified an interim planning

scheme must provide a report to the Tasmanian Planning Commission within four

months from the date on which the notification period concluded.

The report on each Cradle Coast interim planning scheme is to be provided to the

Commission by 20Th

April 2014 unless a further period is agreed.

The Tasmanian Planning Commission has agreed a further period for provision of the

Report until 30th

June 2014.

LUPAA 30J(9) allows that if two or more interim planning schemes for a region are

declared and publicly notified on the same date, the planning authorities must


provide one Joint Report on common provisions and operation of the IPS instead of

each providing a separate report.

A Joint Report must include the views of all of the planning authorities, whether they

are in agreement or not.

The planning authorities of the Cradle Cost Region are to provide a Joint Report.

The Joint Report is to provide –

a) a copy of each representation received by each planning authority, and if no

representations are received, a statement to that effect;

b) a statement indicating the applicable planning authority’s views as to the

merits of each matter contained in each representation made in relation to a

local provision of each interim planning scheme as to –

(i) the need for modification of the interim planning scheme in the

light of that representation; and

(ii) the impact of that representation on the interim planning scheme

as a whole

Each IPS of the CCR contains provisions that are common for all of the IPS.

Such provisions are local provisions in the sense that they are not common

provisions in terms of LUPAA s30B.

The major proportion of each IPS is comprised of the provisions that are

common for the Region. These provisions have been identified for the

purpose of the Joint Report as regional provisions.

It is appropriate the Joint Report provide the views of all the planning

authorities on local provisions that are regional provisions. The approach

allows that such provisions are assessed from a regional perspective, and

that any modification can be considered from the perspective of retaining

regional consistency. That is, if a change is made to a local provision that is a

regional provision in one IPS, the same change is made for all of the other

IPS.

This document is the joint Report and contains the collective views of the

planning authorities of the Cradle Coast Region on the local provisions that

are regional provisions and incorporated into each IPS; and on those aspects

of local provisions that have implication beyond the boundaries of the

applicable municipal district.

Primary content of the Joint Report in respect of local provisions that are

particular to a single municipal district, including for the zoning assigned to

land or for controls on use or development contained in a Specific Area Plan,

is provided by the applicable planning authority for that municipal district.

It is relevant to also include a regional perspective on some local issues to

ensure consistency between IPS on matters of principle and process.

c) a joint statement by all of the planning authorities indicating theirs views as

to the merits of each matter contained in each representation made in

relation to a provision that is a common provision for all interim planning

schemes as to –

(i) the impact of that representation on operation of the interim

planning scheme as a whole if –

a. the relevant planning directive creating a common

mandatory provision or a common optional provision were

to be modified in accordance with the outcome intended

by the representation; or

b. the common provision is an optional provision, and in

accordance with the representation, the provision were to

be –

i. taken out of the interim planning scheme; or

ii. taken out of the interim planning scheme and

replaced by another optional provision

This document is the Joint Report and contains the collective views of the

planning authorities of the Cradle Coast Region on the common provisions

d) a statement of the planning authority’s views and recommendations in

respect of the operation of the interim planning scheme.

This document is the joint Report and contains the collective views and

recommendations of the planning authorities of the Cradle Coast Region in

relation to the impact of representations and modifications on operation of

the IPS.

It is not necessary to identify a single common response on each matter – the Joint

Report may indicate there are two or more options for how to deal with a matter.

It is not necessary the Joint Report provide a single, unanimous or majority view or

opinion on each matter – the Report may indicate more than one option or opinion

on how to address a matter in a representation.

A planning authority is not excluded from holding an independent view. However,

dissenting or alternate views must be expressed in the Report

Cradle Coast Region Section 30J Joint Report

It is the purpose of this document to be the LUPAA s30J Joint Report by the planning

authorities of the Cradle Coast Region on the representations received during the

concurrent notification period for each of the Burnie, Central Coast, Circular Head,

Devonport, Kentish, King Island, Latrobe, Waratah Wynyard, and West Coast interim

planning scheme.

Table 1 categorises the matters in representations and provides an indication for how

the Joint Report views and provides advice in relation to issues in each a category.

The categorises described may be aggregated in terms of three basic process

outcomes –

a) Representations in relation to –

i. planning scheme reform outcomes; and

ii. procedural fairness

(Category 1 and 2)

These matters are not specific to the purpose or content of an IPS; and can

be determined without need for a hearing.

b) Matters in relation to –

i. an error in drafting of the planning scheme ordinance;

ii. an error in translation of a zone from a former planning scheme;

and

iii. opportunity for improvement in the construction or expression of

provisions in the planning scheme ordinance to clarify or improve

operation and compliance without significant change to intended

outcome

(Category 3, 4, and 5)

There is no apparent benefit in conducting a hearing or in delaying

consequential correction or modification of the IPS if these matters are

agreed between the planning authorities and the party making a

representation.

These modifications could be made as consequential amendments under

LUPAA s30IA.

c) Matters requiring modification of the IPS to –

i. change the purpose or outcome of an objective or compliance test in

the planning scheme ordinance;

ii. introduce or delete a provision in the planning scheme ordinance;

iii. adjust the purpose for which land is assigned by zone to reflect a

strategic objective, existing use, or land capability; or

iv. convert the purpose for which land is assigned by zone to provide an

alternate opportunity for use

(Category 6, 7, 8 and 9)

These matters address the substance of IPS provisions and intend significant

change to purpose or operation.

Representations require independent review to ensure consistency to

statutory purpose.

A hearing could be dispensed with if there is agreement between the

planning authority and the party making the representation that the IPS

should be modified.

The TPC may desire to seek future information or to question the parties.

A hearing may be necessary if there is difference between the planning

authorities in relation to regional consistency or disagreement with the party

making a representation.

The TPC should have discretion to dispense with a hearing and determine a

representation if it –

i. is not in relation to an IPS; or

ii. does not contain sufficient information to establish a prima facie

case for consideration in terms of the applicable LUPAA


prescriptions for change or departure from the purpose or

provisions of a planning scheme

Table 2 identifies each person making a representation by municipal district; and

describes for each representation the quantum of issues raised in relation to

common, common regional and local provisions.

Table 3 of this Report sets out the nature of each matter in each representation, and

provides a corresponding response in relation to merits of the matter, whether it is

considered there is a need to modify in accordance with the outcome intended by the

representation, and the likely impact of such change on operation of the IPS as a

whole.

The 30J Report does not represent a decision by the planning authorities to finalise

how each matter is to be determined.

The Report is advice to the Tasmanian Planning Commission, and the Commission is

required to take the advice into consideration when determining how to resolve each

representation.

The TPC may not agree with a position in response to a representation as articulated

in the Joint Report.

Hearing

After receiving a Joint Report, the Commission –

a) Is to hold a hearing in relation to each of the representations provided in the

Joint Report.

The Commission is to appoint an independent Panel to conduct hearings.

Hearings are open to the public.

The Panel may determine whether a representation is in relation to an

interim planning scheme or whether it is concerned with a matter that deals

with other aspects of the land use planning system or could be more

correctly dealt with through a process other than as required for reviewing

and finalising an IPS.

It follows that not all persons making a representation will be invited to

appear at a hearing.

Each party making a representation in relation to an interim planning

scheme is to be invited to attend and speak to the matters identified, and

may be questioned by the Panel and by other parties, including a planning

authority, in order to clarify the matters in the representation.

The Panel may seek further information, including from the person making

the representation or from the planning authority, to assist its

understanding and to inform its decision; and may call witnesses if required.

However, the hearing process should not allow a person opportunity to

expand the scope of an issue or to substantially embellish the standard of

material provided in a representation so as to provide further and better

particulars in support of the outcome advocated.

b) If there are several representations on the same issue, the Commission may

consolidate such representations, and hold a hearing in relation to

consolidated representations; and

c) May hold hearings in relation to other matters that it thinks fit

However, LUPAA does not anticipate a hearing to be a forum in which to advance an

alternate philosophy for purpose of the land use planning system, or to make

commentary and suggestion on the adequacy or fairness of any prescribed process.

A hearing is particular to an interim planning scheme, and to the matters that are

relevant to the function, construction, purpose, and content of each IPS.

A hearing should not entertain submissions nor engage in deliberation on any matter

that is extraneous to the statutory purpose of an IPS.

Determination of an interim planning scheme

The hearing and review process conducted by the Commission is intended to provide

a foundation on which to make a decision on whether the interim planning scheme

can be approved; or for whether the interim planning scheme, in whole or party,

should be redone.

After receiving a Joint Report under s30J, and having completed any hearings, the

Commission is to consider the following matters in relation to the IPS –

a) the interim planning scheme itself;

b) any document in relation to the interim planning scheme provided to the

Commission in the Joint Report;

c) matters raised at hearings in relation to the interim planning scheme;

d) the Cradle Coast Regional Land Use Strategy; and

e) any applicable State Policy

As a result of such a consideration the Commission is to –

In relation to common provisions

Prepare a report to the Minister for Planning in relation to common provisions of the

interim planning scheme to include –

a) a copy of each interim planning scheme;

b) a copy of the Joint Report;

c) having regard to the Joint Report, provided to it by the planning authorities,

a statement by the Commission in relation to each common provision to

specify whether the Commission is of the opinion that –

(i) a planning directive containing the provision ought be modified to

take account of the representation made in respect of the

provision; and

(ii) the interim planning schemes ought be modified accordingly

On receipt of the Commission’s report the Minister may direct the Commission to

prepare a draft planning directive to modify a planning directive containing a

common provision for which a change is require.

The Cradle Coast Region expects that the TPC will independently consider and report

on representations and LUPAA s30J advice on common provisions regardless of any

submission or decision that may have been made in relation to the same common

provision under a LUPAA 30K process applying for an IPS in a municipal district

outside the Region.

In relation to local provisions

At the completion of its hearings and after considering all applicable matters, the

Commission may in relation to a local provision (including for how land is assigned to

a zone) –

a) direct the planning authority for a specific interim planning scheme to

prepare a modification –

(i) to correct an error in a local provision of that interim planning

scheme;

(ii) in relation to a local provision; or

(iii) in relation to a common provision if -

a. to modify a common provision in that interim planning

scheme to comply with a planning directive;

b. to modify a common provision for the purpose of consistency

to an urgent amendment made to that interim planning

scheme in accordance with LUPAA s 30IA(3);

c. to take an optional common provision out of that interim

planning scheme; or

d. to take an optional common provision out of that interim

planning scheme and replace it with another optional

common provision; or

b) prepare such a modification itself

The planning authority must prepare and submit the required modifications to the

Commission within the timeframe specified in the direction. If the Commission

instructs an interim planning scheme must be modified, the Commission may also

instruct that the modified interim planning scheme must be notified again.

If the Commission instructs a modified interim planning scheme must be notified, all

of the requirements of LUPAA with respect to the process and period for notification,

the responsibilities on a planning authority to prepare a report to the Commission,

and for the Commission to conduct a hearing and either report to the Minister or

again require modification, must be fully observed.

The Cradle Coast Region expects that any decision to require a modification to a local

provision that is a regional provision must apply for each of the IPS. The approach is

critical for ensuring consistency is retained between the provisions of each IPS.

Finalising the Cradle Coast planning schemes

If the Commission is satisfied that an interim planning scheme, including any

modification required to an interim planning scheme, is in order having regard to all

statutory requirements, it must obtain the approval of the Minister to make the

interim planning scheme into a planning scheme if such planning scheme –

a) complies with LUPAA s20 in terms of its purpose and provisions;


b) complies with LUPAA s21 in terms of consistency and co-ordination to the

planning schemes applying for adjacent municipal areas and with regard to

the use and development of the Cradle Coast Region as a whole in social,

economic and environmental terms

c) complies with LUPAA s30E in that –

(i) it contains common mandatory provisions;

(ii) it contains applicable common optional provisions;

(iii) it contains local provisions that are not directly or indirectly

inconsistent with common provisions or an over-riding local

provision or a conflicting local provision; and

(iv) it is consistent with and likely to further the objectives and

outcomes of the Cradle Coast Regional Land Use Strategy

The Commission’s decision to make a planning scheme must be published in the

Government Gazette.

The decision to make a planning scheme revokes the interim planning scheme, and

the final scheme becomes the enforceable planning scheme for the municipal district

from the date notified in the Government Gazette.

The Commission is required to take all reasonable steps to ensure that all of the final

planning schemes for the Cradle Coast Region are to come into operation on the

same day.

Joint Report on Views and Opinions on Representations

This Joint Report sets out the views and options of the planning authorities of the

Cradle Coast Region in response to each of the matters raised in each representation.

The Joint Report addresses the matters required in the Report to be provided to the

Commission in accordance with LUPAA s30J.

The interim planning schemes to which this report refers are –










It is assumed that the version of each interim planning scheme to which

representations relate is as contained in the Content Management System module of

Planning Schemes Online as administered by the Tasmanian Planning Commission at

the date on which each interim planning scheme was declared and notified.

The planning scheme maps referenced in the Joint Report are those as declared and

notified, and were then held in hard copy or as PDF files on the respective planning

authority website.

Hard copies of each IPS, including maps, are not included with the Joint Report.

It is noted that each interim planning scheme has been subsequently modified to

correct or introduce additional common mandatory provisions, specifically in relation

to –

a) clause 8.1 on information requirements from January 2014;

b) Clause 9.1.1 and 9.2; and

c) the standards on single and multiple dwelling development on land in the

General Residential zone as directed by PD 4.1 from 28th

February 2014

Representations were not made on the modified mandatory provisions. However,

the Joint Report makes observation on the modified common mandatory provision in

association with a response on a representation in relation to the form of provision at

the date of notification.

It is noted the planning scheme maps for each of the IPS are now held on the

Tasmanian Land Information System and linked to the IPS ordinance through the

Content Management System.

The format of the Report is -

Volume 1

a) An introductory statement

b) A schedule indicating by municipal district the persons making

representation and the nature of the provisions addressed in the

representation.

c) Tables 4 – 46 inclusive to identify the matters in representations and the

planning authorities’ response for each issue.

(i) Each Tableaddresses a particular set of provisions within the interim

planning scheme ordinance.

The Tables are set out in the sequence of the provisions within the

interim planning scheme in accordance with the format and structure

required by Planning Directive No 1.

The approach requires that each of the matters in all of the

representations that relate to a particular provision are identified and

discussed within the same part of the Joint Report.

Each matter is addressed in context of its position within the interim

planning scheme so as to present the full scope of issues and allow

consistency in the content of the advice provided to the TPC.

The approach is consistent with the coordinated approach to local

provisions and the objective for the best possible level of consistency

between planning schemes.

The format of the Joint Report means that the entirety of the matters

in each representation on an interim planning scheme is not treated

individually.

The approach may be criticised in that it creates an apparently

disjointed arrangement in the response provided for each

representation; and does not allow a person to readily establish what

has been said by the planning authorities on each matter in a

representation or on the representation as a whole.

However, the Joint Report format is in accordance with the

instruction in LUPAA s30K for consolidation of representations. LUPAA

s30K instructs that the TPC may disaggregate individual

representations into component matters, and consolidate all like

representations into a combined hearing and review process.

The Joint Report anticipates such an approach and consolidates

representations in accordance with the relative provisions of the IPS.

a. Each issue is allocated an Issue Reference Number (1st column).

Issue Reference Numbers do not relate to the reference number

allocated to the entirety of a representation.

The Representation Reference Number is included in the 4th

column

identifying for each matter the Person making the Representation to

enable cross-reference to the original statement.

(ii) The 2nd

column indicates the matter addressed in the representation

by reference to the applicable citation for the provision of the interim

planning scheme or to the land assigned to a zone.

(iii) The 3rd

column identifies whether the issue relates to a common

provision, a regional provision or a local provision.

Local provisions relating to the zone to which land is assigned are

included at the conclusion of issues for each zone provision under the

heading of Land Assigned to Zone in Column 2.

A colour code is included for ready reference –

The distribution of matters raised in representation is –

Nature of Provision

Common Mandatory Provisions

13%

Regional provisions

58%

Provisions

28%

Other Matters 1%


(iv) Column 4 identifies the person making the representation by reference

to the Representation Reference Number and the name and contact

details for the person.

(v) A copy or summary of that part of the representation addressing each

individual interim planning scheme provision is provided in the 5th

Column.

Copy in full of the representation text is included if the statement is

relatively succinct.

Summaries are intended to provide an overview, and may include

direct quotes from part of the representation document.

The original statement should be read in full in order to better grasp

context and expression of the representation.

(vi) The planning authorities’ response on each issue is provided in Column 6.

The response contains a view and opinion on the merits of each issue and

on operation of the interim planning scheme; whether modification is

required; and the impact of the representation or modification on

operation of the interim planning scheme as a whole.

The response is the joint view and opinion of all of the planning authorities

unless otherwise identified.

If one or more planning authority hold an alternate or dissenting view on

the merits or consequence of an issue in a representation, such planning

authority is identified and the view is stated.

If several representations address the same matter, the table is set out to

provide a single statement of response.

Appendix 1 contains the resolutions made by each planning authority to provide its views

and opinions in relation to representations received on the municipal interim planning

scheme; and to include such views and opinions in the Joint Report.

Appendix 2 contains a summary of the substantive modifications proposed by the Joint

Report to the common mandatory provisions and the regionally consistent local provisions

as contained in the interim planning schemes

Volume 2

Contains a full copy of each representation received.

The document is arrangement by representations received for each municipal district; and

each representation is assigned its own reference number.


Table 1 – Principles for response on matters raised in Representation

Category

Matters raised

Principle to guide response

1.

Planning scheme reform outcomes

(5 x representations)

Adequacy of the IPS process to deliver on reform objectives for the Tasmanian

planning system

Express concern for whether the IPS simplify and improve the level of certainty in

planning regulation; and for capacity to remove constraint on development and

investment

The IPS of the Cradle Coast Region have each been prepared in accordance with the mandatory common provisions on format and structure, and include the

common provisions for residential development and bushfire prone areas.

The IPS process cannot be responsible for resolving a failing in the expectation of a person that may be based on interpretation of information that did not come

from the regional planning project. Nor does the IPS process invite opportunity for evaluating opinions on how the planning system could be better structured

and operated.

These are not matters in relation to an interim planning scheme.

It is not appropriate that the Joint Report deliberate and provide advice on matters of general policy for how the planning system should operate; or provide a

view on whether the IPS should be modified.

For clarity, the Joint Report provides an explanation for why the issue is not a matter in relation to an IPS.

2.

Procedural Fairness


Question adequacy of the process for notification, including prior consultation,

personalised invitations to comment, and denial of natural justice

Notification on the IPS was conducted in accordance with the statutory process prescribed in LUPAA.

Whether or not the notification process was compliant with statutory requirements is a matter of fact ascertainable by examining the actions and documents of

the planning authorities.

For clarity, the Joint Report provides an explanation for why the issue is not a matter in relation to an IPS.

It is not appropriate that the Joint Report deliberate and provide advice on matters regarding the adequacy of the process prescribed by legislation.

A person with a grievance on process may initiate a judicial review through avenues outside the TPC hearing.

3.

Drafting errors in the planning scheme

ordinance


Identify errors in the planning scheme ordinance in relation to spelling, punctuation,

formatting, numbering, and omissions.

This category of representation addresses common mandatory provisions, regionally

common provisions and local provisions.

There are matters in relation to drafting errors that do not go to substance of an IPS.

These matters can be treated as consequential amendments arising from a proof reading of the instrument, and do not impact on intent or meaning of provisions.

The Joint Report indicates whether it is agreed a matter is an error or omission in drafting, and includes advice on the nature of any correction required.

The TPC may direct in accordance with LUPAA s30M that modifications be made to correct errors in an IPS.

LUPAA 301A and 37(1) both allow the TPC may dispense with notification of a change to a planning scheme if required to correct an error, remove an anomaly,

clarify or simplify operation, remove any inconsistency against other regulation, make procedural changes, achieve consistency to common mandatory provisions,

or for any other prescribed reason – subject only to a requirement that public interest will not be prejudiced.

The principle to dispense with notification implies it is also not necessary to conduct a hearing.

The principle should apply in relation to representations received on an IPS that identify errors in need of correction.

There is no likelihood of compromising a public interest if spelling, punctuation and citation errors are corrected.

There is little to be gained from hearing a party on such matters. Either the error exists or it does not.

It can be said these are matters agreed between the parties. A decision panel in other jurisdictions is generally not required to hear further submissions on

agreed facts.

The TPC should be able to determine a representation relating to an error or omission in drafting without resort to a hearing.


4.

Errors in relation to the translation from

the former planning scheme


Express concern for the correctness of translation from a zone under the former

planning scheme into the most corresponding zone provided in the PD1 template.

These matters are really questions of fact for whether there is an error in translating the purpose of a zone under a former planning scheme into the zone with the

most corresponding purpose as provided in the PD1 template.

The Joint Report provides advice on whether –

i. the zone assigned under the former planning scheme has been correctly translated into the zone with the most corresponding purpose as provided under

the PD1 template; or

ii. a change in the purpose of the zone assigned to the land is reasonably required by a State Policy, mandatory directive, or for consistency to the CCR LUS

Modification of an IPS to correct an error in the zone to which land is assigned may be dealt with in the same manner as suggested with respect to correction or

errors and omissions of drafting.

The Joint Report indicates whether an issue in a representation is agreed as a matter requiring modification to correct a mistake in translation of zone purpose or

to deliver greater consistency to the objectives for the CCR LUS.

It can be said these are matters on which there is agreement between the parties. A decision panel in other jurisdictions is generally not required to hear further

submissions on agreed facts.

LUPAA s30IA and 37(1) both allow the TPC may dispense with notification of changes to a planning scheme if required to remove an anomaly or clarify or simplify

operation – subject only to a requirement that public interest will not be prejudiced.


The principle should apply in relation to representations received on an IPS that identify opportunity or provide suggestion to improve the construction and

expression of an IPS provision.

There is little to be gained from hearing a party on such matters if the Joint Report supports modification.

5.

Construction of provisions in the planning

scheme ordinance


Suggestion for improvement in construction or expression of individual provisions to

improve clarity or certainty in operation and compliance without modification to the

purpose or outcome.



These matters are in relation to format and expression or the control content of a provision.

Such matters address opportunity to improve clarity and certainty for operation and compliance, and are not concerned with changing the purpose of a provision.

The Joint Report indicates the majority can be agreed as consequential modifications in the nature of LUPAA s37(1) for which there is no express or unintended

change in purpose, meaning or outcome for each provision.

These matters can be treated as consequential amendments.

There is no likelihood of compromising a public interest if changes are made to expression or construction to improve clarity of individual provisions.

There is little to be gained from hearing a party on such matters if the Joint Report agrees with the representation.

It can be said these are matters agreed between the parties if the Joint Report agrees with the need for change. A decision panel in other jurisdictions is generally

not required to hear further submissions on agreed facts.

The Joint Report indicates whether an issue in a representation is agreed as a matter requiring modification to improve clarity in expression or construction of

individual provisions.

The Joint Report provides explanation for why some suggested changes are not agreed.

LUPAA 301A and 37(1) both allow the TPC may dispense with notification of a change to a planning scheme if required to correct an error, remove an anomaly,

clarify or simplify operation, remove any inconsistency against other regulation, make procedural changes, achieve consistency to common mandatory provisions,

or for any other prescribed reason – subject only to a requirement that public interest will not be prejudiced.


The principle should apply in relation to representations received on an IPS that identify improvement in expression or of individual provisions.

There is little to be gained from hearing a party on such matters if the Joint Report supports modification.

The TPC should be able to determine whether a representation offers constructive suggestion or identifies valid reason to make changes that will remove an

anomaly or clarify or simplify operation of an IPS without need for a hearing.


6.

Protect or preserve the benefit of

provisions contained in a former planning

scheme ordinance


Seek to retain benefit of an unrealised opportunity provided under a former planning

scheme, including for the types of permitted use, applicable standards, and the

quantum in compliance tests.



This is a separate category of representation seeking to retain elements of a former planning scheme in a manner with potential to impact on consistency

between planning schemes in terms of how like maters are regulated.

A loss in the individualism of provisions for like use or development as contained in former planning schemes is an unavoidable consequence in harmonising

provisions in order to deliver consistency in the purpose and content of provisions for planning schemes applying between adjacent municipal districts.

The Cradle Coast interim planning scheme process acknowledged it is inevitable that the finer grain of criteria for permitted activity, and for use and development

standards, will change as provisions are harmonised. The outcome may be an increase or reduction in the level of intervention experienced and in the

requirements for compliance relative to the provisions of a former planning scheme.

The Joint Report indicates as a matter of principle that any shift in the nature of an opportunity or compliance test available under a former planning scheme and

the opportunity or compliance test applying under the IPS for the corresponding zone or Code should be accepted if the general intent and outcome remain

consistent.

There is no imperative within the statutory intent for an IPS to protect the exact form of an opportunity that may have been available under a former planning

scheme provided there is a comparable translation in purpose and outcome.

The Joint Report suggests the provisions in an IPS should only be modified to protect or preserve provisions applying under a former planning scheme after having

regard for whether –

i. the common provisions or the regional provisions include opportunity to insert locality specific criteria that are different to the default acceptable solution

for the applicable standard; or

ii. the IPS standard effectively sterilises or unreasonably restrains opportunity to achieve complying use or development of a kind or form previously

available; and

iii. there is no alternate permit pathway provided in the IPS

If modification is required, preference is that the change be effected by modification of the generic provision rather than by a provision that seeks to exclude

operation of the standard and revert to the provision that pre-dates implementation of the IPS.

These matters require exercise of judgement for whether –

a) the IPS effectively sterilises or unreasonably restrains opportunity to achieve complying use or development of a like kind or form regardless of the permit

pathway or criteria in applicable compliance test;

b) the desirable to retain standards that applied under a former planning scheme in order only to avoid what may be perceived as a less certain or more

onerous permit pathway under the IPS which could realise the opportunity provided by the former planning scheme but unsecured through a permit

process prior to declaration of the IPS;

c) it is fair and reasonable to create inequity between use or development on the basis of standards that differ only because of the temporal origin for the

legal identity of a site;

d) it is necessary for effective operation of an IPS to create an inconsistency between planning schemes in relation to standards on the same planning matter

for reason only that the former planning instrument was different if there was and remains no need to be different;

e) it is necessary for effective operation of an IPS to evidence a lack of commitment and consistency to the common standard prescribed in the CCR model IPS;

and

f) it is necessary for effective operation of an IPS to include provisions that by-pass an opportunity to demonstrate compliance to the objective through a

permit pathway relying on performance criteria

The Joint Report indicates for each matter whether protection of a former opportunity may be achieved where appropriate without inclusion of “saving

provisions”.

The Joint Report does not provide a consensus position on whether exception provisions should be introduced to retain former standards for particular use or

development sites or localities.


7.

Change to the purpose for which land is

zoned under the IPS


Seek to change the purpose for which land may be used by converting the zone

assigned by translation from a former planning scheme zone into an IPS zone that

does not have a corresponding strategic purpose.

Representations typically reflect a desire to enhance opportunity for use or

development.

Representations in relation to zoning may express dissatisfaction that the zone has

not been changed to establish an alternate land use purpose.

In some instances a representation indicates the former and current IPS zone does

not correlate to the established purpose for which the land is utilised.

Representations relating to how land is assigned to a zone are described as local

provision (LP) matters for the purpose of this Report.

These representations seek to change local provisions in an IPS in relation to the zone to which land is assigned.

The majority of representations refer to individual sites or discrete small localities.

These matters are comparable in intended outcome to a scheme amendment or dispensation to change the zoning of land.

The majority may be described as speculative or opportunistic in order to include individual sites as an increment on an adjacent zone; or changes that may

involve a significant land area or facilitate a major departure from the purpose for which land is currently assigned.

There are no representations comparable to LUPAA 40A matters which evidence a commitment to subsequently proceed with a particular kind of use or form of

development in the event a change is made.

There are a small few which describe a speculative use or development outcome if the impediment perceived in the applicable IPS for a specific site were to be

removed.

While representations for a change in zone may be described as being in relation to a local provision, there is a regional interest with regard to consistency in how

land is assigned to a zone from both a strategic and operational perspective.

a) It is debatable whether such representations should be entertained given the statutory purpose for an IPS process to translate and not convert.

An IPS is not a general reform or review instrument.

LUPAA 30I requires a representation must be in relation to an interim planning scheme. A representation may be invalid if it pursues an outcome that is

beyond competence of an IPS.

There is strong desire among government, industry and the community for the planning system to only activate the processes that are necessary to further

a statutory outcome. There is no purpose in continuing and exhausting all stages in a land use planning process if it is clear a submission will fail.

The Joint Report provides advice on whether a representation that seeks to modify the purpose or outcome of an IPS provision, including for the zoning of

land, is valid against the statutory function for an IPS.

Such change could follow a dispensation pathway if there is an urgent need to facilitate an outcome consistent with the CCR LUS but which was not

reasonably contemplated at the time the IPS was declared.

Alternatively, the change could be more appropriately addressed by a subsequent scheme amendment.

The Joint Report suggests a representation for a change in the zone assigned to land in order to facilitate a purpose that was not intended by the former

planning scheme is not a matter within the statutory function of an IPS unless –

i. reasonably required for consistency to the CCR LUS and in accordance with the published municipal land use strategy; or

ii. required to rectify an anomaly in the former planning scheme under which –

a. translation to a corresponding IPS zone perpetuates a purpose that is inconsistent with the reality of the established land use and for which

there is little likelihood of redeeming the land for the assigned purpose; or

b. factors such as land capability, infrastructure provision or availability, natural hazards, or economic or cultural values clearly exclude use or

development for the purpose intended by the zone assigned by direct translation into the IPS format

b) In the event modifying an IPS to change the zone to which land is assigned is appropriate to the IPS process, the representation should not be further

considered unless it adequately addresses the corresponding matters for consideration of any change in zone as provided for in LUPAA s30R and s32.

Both LUPAA s30R and LUPAA s32 prescribe the considerations against which a departure from the current provisions of a planning scheme is to be assessed.

For consistency to the planning processes required under LUPAA, the adequacy of a representation seeking to modify an IPS should be assessed against the

same considerations.

The matters in s30R or s32 should be the default considerations for any significant change in purpose or outcome of the IPS.

A representation should contain sufficient information to demonstrate compliance to the applicable requirements in 30R or 32.

The advice in the Joint Report should turn on the information provided with each representation.


There is nothing expressly within the IPS representation process to allow a planning authority to request further information.

There is considerable variation among representations in the scope and standard of supporting information.

The majority of representations either fail to directly address the considerations in s30R or s32; or are very superficial in the nature and veracity of

information provided to demonstrate compliance.

If a representation does not adequately identify and address each of the matters in s30R or s32, it should fail.

No opportunity should be allowed during the hearing process to substantially expand upon and embellish the scope or standard of information and analysis

provided with the representation as made during the notification period.

The Joint Report indicates for each representation whether the information provided is sufficient to establish the change is reasonably required and otherwise

adequate to address each of the considerations that would apply under LUPAA s30R or s32.

c) The Joint Report advises inadequate representations should not be allowed, and should be determined without need for a hearing.

The planning process for an IPS implies expectation of a right to be heard if a representation is made.

However, the right does not appear absolute, and can appropriately be restricted to only exist if a representation is in relation to an interim planning scheme.

The nexus between the right to make a representation and the right to be considered or heard must be clearly understood and observed.

PD1 clause 8.10 illustrates the position with respect to representations on a permit application. A representation is valid only in respect of the provision

invoking discretion. It is not a general invitation to provide comment on any aspect of the permit application.

A similar principle should be applied for representations on a planning scheme. If a representation is not particular to the purpose of an IPS it should be

considered invalid.

8.

Appropriateness or adequacy of planning

scheme ordinance provisions


Indicate the objectives and compliance tests may not be appropriate or adequate to

the outcomes intended for the IPS, and that the IPS should be modified to insert or

delete provisions.

The suggested modifications intend a change to the purpose or outcome of a

provision.



These matters seek to diminish, embellish, or extend the purpose or outcome of an objective or compliance test.

Such matters are more than corrections or improvement in expression. They address the substance of a provision.

Representations variously argue the adequacy or relevance in purpose or objective, the effectiveness or relevance of an IPS compliance test against its objective;

and a concern for how the IPS may unreasonably or unnecessarily restrict use or develop on a particular site.

Suggested modification cannot be accommodated without risk of departure from purpose or intended outcome.

Each must be reviewed for consistency to underpinning State and regional strategy and policy (including the CCR LUS), any mandatory direction, and for

consistency to other provisions of the IPS; and to determine whether the suggested change has implication for what the provision intends or delivers.

Resolution involves more than a judgement for compliance to standards for drafting.

The Joint Report provides advice on whether a modification should be made for the reason that –

i. The matter is in relation to an IPS;

ii. The suggested change would improve operation of the IPS without significant variation to strategic purpose or for intended outcome of a provision;

and

iii. There is sufficient information provided in the representation to demonstrate compliance to the mandatory matters in LUPAA s30R or s32 for

modification to the provisions of a planning scheme

The Joint Report suggests the principles discussed against Category 7 in relation to acceptance of a representation, adequacy of information, and need for a

hearing, are to apply if a representation requires significant change in the purpose or operation of an ordinance provision.


9.

Relevant agency provisions


Seek –

a) expansion of exemptions for infrastructure use and development; and

b) inclusion of additional provisions to –

i. protect the operation and security of infrastructure assets; and

ii. minimise likely impact on safety and amenity of use and

development on land in proximity of existing and potential

infrastructure assets

These matters seek to elevate and expand the role of an IPS to facilitate and protect a

particular form of utility use and development.

These matters primarily concern interests of the electricity generating and

transmission entities Hydro and Transend; and the road entity Department of

Infrastructure, Energy and Resources.

This category of representation addresses common mandatory provisions and

regionally common provisions.

This category deals specifically with representations by State agencies or business enterprises seeking to change the purpose or operation of provisions in order to

create an advantage or benefit for the role or responsibilities of the agency or service provider.

The merit or otherwise of the representations turns on –

a) whether it is within the jurisdiction of a planning scheme to facilitate an exemption that provides for operational convenience of the infrastructure entity

and allows use or development of a kind for which there is likely to be more than a low risk to purpose of the IPS; and

b) whether it is within the competence of a planning scheme to assume a statutory responsibility vested in another statutory agency through legislation

other than LUPAA

There is no point in a hearing considering the merits of a representation if the matters are ultra vires the powers for which any planning scheme may make

provisions or are matters for which a planning authority has no jurisdiction to enforce compliance.

The Joint Report indicates it is not within the statutory competence of an IPS –

i. to exempt use or development with potential to have more than a low risk for the statutory purpose of a planning scheme;

ii. to make decisions with respect to the protection of infrastructure assets and to minimise likely risk to the community in circumstances where there is

already a statutory responsibility conferred on an infrastructure entity; and

iii. to extend or embellish exemption or protection provisions already available to an infrastructure entity under its enabling legislation

The Joint Report indicates the representations made by infrastructure agencies to embellish exemptions and to include infrastructure asset protection provisions

should not be allowed as matters consistent with the purpose and powers of an IPS.

There is no need to conduct a hearing into the merit or otherwise of the substantive outcomes intended by the representations.


Table 2 – Persons making a representation in relation to a notified Interim Planning Scheme for a municipal district of the Cradle Coast Region

Allen, Geoff

Appleby Hotel Pty Ltd (Dobson, Mitchell Allport)

Atkins, Frank

Atkinson, Justin

Badcock Craig (Oldaker Street)

Badcock, Craig

Bell, Natalie

Bennett, Alysia

Bissett, Kim

Blenkhorn, Rodney

Boat Harbour Progress Association Inc (Wilson, Neville)

Borlini, Pettina (Olivini Pty Ltd)

Boxhall, Patricia

Braid, Greg

Briggs, John (Ecologically Sustainable Design Pty Ltd)

Britton, Hazel & Ellison, Patricia

Brumby, RC & LJ

Burbury, Lonis

Burnie Airport Corporation

Burnie City Council

Campbell, Barry

Cannell, Elisabeth (1)

Cannell, Elisabeth (2)

Carson, Robert and Wendy

Carson, Robert and Wendy (Irishtown Road)

Cash, Greg and McMullen, Tija

Cement Concrete & Aggregates Australia



Clarke, William

Colledge, Michele & Garth

Collins, Sally

Connelly, Gail (Lester Franks)

Connolly, R

Cooke, Robert

Crawshaw, Christine

Crawshaw, Ray

Critchlow, Phillip & Audrey

Cure, IJ

Curtis, Glynis and Derek

Dalby, Mary

Dart, John

Davis, Geoff and Patricia

De Bomford, W

Denwar Pty Ltd

Department of Communication (Heazlett, Mark)

Department of Infrastructure, Energy & Resources

Devonport Bodyworks (Kerrison, Maurice)

Devonport Central Pty Ltd (Bullock Consulting)


Dudley, Simon and Elizabeth

Eberhardt, Adrian

Enright, Mark

EnviroPlan Australia (Wells, Micheal)

Fisher, Glenn & Janet

Fishman, FC & KR and Lambert, L

Flanagan, Rebecca, and O’Rouke, Greg, and Bakker, Jan

Forsyth, Janet

Foster, D & J (Lester Franks)

Freeman, Ron

Fromberg, Bill

Gamble, Richard

Gibson, Jedda

Goodstone Group (Planning Development Services)

Gowan Motors (4 Planning Pty Ltd )

Green Point Tas Pty Ltd (Nicholls, Richard)

Guthrie, Rod

Hall, Lesley

Hamilton, Mary

Hardy, RT & JM

Harrisson, Patricia

Heikkinen, M & A

Heritage Tasmania (Fitzgerald, Liz)

Hiscutt, Benjamin

Hobbs, Rhonda (4 Planning Pty Ltd)

Horne, Peter and Natalie

Hoyle, Ian and Virginia

Hudson, Alan

Hydro Tasmania

IASM Investments Pty Ltd (GHD Pty Ltd)

James Ashworth

Janney, Douglas

Jensen-Schnapper, Lynn

Johns, Jason & Sarah Johnson, Allan

Johnston, David

Jones, Annie & Joseph

Jones, Cliff & Rhonda

Jones, Faye

Kay, KR

Kentish Council

Kentish Council (rural land)

Kernan, J and W (Lester Franks)

Kerr, William

King Island Council

Kossler, Margaret & Peter

Kurrle, Peter & Dianne (Carport Central)

Lange, Aaron

Latrobe Council

Lead Light Investments (Boardman, Evan)

Leary, Mike

Lester Franks

Long, Adam

Long, Shaun

Lynd, Philip & Ann

Martin Gill

McNab, John

Meander Valley Council

Mersey Community Care (Lester Franks)

Michell Hodgetts & Associate - Plunkett, Paul (Myalla)

Michell Hodgetts & Associates - Plunkett, Paul (Elliott)

Michell Hodgetts & Associates - Plunkett, Paul (Preolenna

Road)

Michell Hodgetts & Associates - Plunkett, Paul (Tollymore

Road)

Michell Hodgetts & Associates (Turgah Road)

Milne, RA & JE

Morgan, Kevin

Nettleton, David

New Bounty Pty Ltd (Lester Franks)

Overton, Andrew

Owens, M

Parker, Beverly (Environmental Services & Design Pty Ltd)

Parker, KJ & RA

Parsons, David

Peisker, Joe

Penguin Caravan Park (IreneInc)

Pitt & Sherry (Dion Lester)

Poke, Jonathon & Desmond

Porteus, Timi

Priestley, R

Private Forests (Ravenwood, Ian)

Railpine P/L (Environmental Service and Design Pty Ltd)

Redruth Trading Co (Lester Franks)

Roberts-Thomson, Andrew

Rogers, T & OM

Rynmarc Pty Ltd (Bullock Consulting)

Sadler, Duncan

Sands, Richard

Shields, GM

Simplot (Dazeley, G)

Simplot (West, David)

Southern Cross Care (Tas) Inc (Fabrzio, Nic)

Southern Cross Care (Tas) Inc (Sadek, Richard)

Squeaking Point Properties Pty Ltd (Planning Development

Services)

Stammers, Mrs M

Stewart, Leonie, and Brewster, Kevin

Storay, M and K (Lester and Franks)

Stuart, K

Stuart, R

Stubbs, Brian and Lorraine

Sushames, Renee

Swain, Dale & Dorothy

Sweeney, Michael

Sweetman, Vivienne

Talbot, Mike

Tall Timbers Tasmania Pty Ltd

Tarver, C & K

Tascott Carpet et al (Neil Shephard & Associates)

Tasports (Planning Development Services)

Thomson, Debbie

Thorn, Jennifer

Thorne, Lyndal

Timms, RC & HM

Transend (Goodman, Gina)

Turners Beach Coastcare Inc

University of Tasmania (ireneinc)

Van Der Weide, Robert and Toni

Walker, Geoff

Waratah-Wynyard Council

Ware, Barry

Waterfront Wynyard Motel (Hilliger, Cyndia and McErlain,

Justin)

Webb, Rose

Weitjens, Jed (FJA Solutions)

West Coast Council

West Coast Recreation Association (Giles, Max and

Croswell, Anthony)

White, Jeffery

Whitney, Brian

Wigg, GV and Sons

Williams, Geoff

Wilson, Darren

Woodhouse, Colin (IreneInc)

Worthen, Phillip


Table 3 – Persons making a Representation in relation to a notified Interim Planning Scheme for a municipal district of the Cradle Coast Region by municipal district and issue addressed in the Representation

BURNIE CITY COUNCIL

REP

NO. Person making Representation

Mandatory

Provisions

Regional

Provisions

Local

Provisions

Other

Matters

1

Bennett, Alysia

1

Issue 691

1

Issue 703

2

Boxhall, Patricia

1

Issue 705

3

Burbury, Lonis

1

Issue 419

4

Burnie City Council

Earle, Patrick

24

Issue 24, 26, 27, 28, 32, 34, 35, 39, 41, 42, 52, 55, 58, 60,

62, 68, 71, 75, 78, 79, 82, 86, 89, 91, 642, 647, 650, and

657,

124

Issue 20, 21, 100, 102, 106, 112, 118, 119, 130, 131, 144,

168, 169, 171, 173, 174, 188, 191, 211, 217, 219, 220,

230, 232, 235, 236, 254, 259, 260, 264, 268, 277, 280,

285, 293, 295, 296, 297, 299, 305, 306, 307, 310, 314,

315, 316, 318, 324, 325, 326, 335, 340, 342, 343, 344,

346, 348, 357, 358, 360, 362, 363, 364, 365, 367, 368,

369, 372, 373, 384, 390, 397, 398, 401, 413, 414, 415,

416, 433, 437, 438, 441, 448, 455, 465, 470, 482, 573,

578, 582, 588, 593, 594, 601, 602, 605, 608, 611, 630,

633, 635, 658, 659, 669, 677, 683, 684, 694, 715, 718,

720, 724, 725, 729, 731, 740, 747, 748, 749, 765, and

767,

4

Issue 151, 181, 238, and 265

-

5

Campbell, Barry

1

Issue 380

6

Cement Concrete & Aggregates Australia

3

Issue 481, 670, and 761

7

Clarke, William

1

Issue 618

8

Cooke, Robert

BCC & CCC

2

Issue 424, and 446

9

Crawshaw, Christine

1

Issue 707

10

Crawshaw

Cradle Coast Regional Planning Initiative · 2020-01-30 · Cradle Coast Region to commence from...

Documents

Transcript of Cradle Coast Regional Planning Initiative · 2020-01-30 · Cradle Coast Region to commence from...