Burnie City Council starts motion to remove councils from development decision responsibility

Despite a push from a regional council – who say development decisions fall over due to a few ‘loud objectors’ – Tasmania’s 29 councils will still have the final say on approvals. DETAILS >>

• Minister recognises “significant” tourism threat to wilderness at Lake Malbena, campaigners say
• Corruption watchdog rejects complaint Lake Malbena development

A BID by one of Tasmania’s 29 councils to remove planning powers from local councils has been lost.

At the Local Government Association of Tasmanian conference in Devonport on Friday, the motion, put up by Burnie City Council to investigate support for removing the mandatory requirement for a council to act as a planning authority for development applications and establishing an independent statewide development assessment panel instead was not carried.

Before the vote Burnie Mayor Steve Kons said most bad development decisions were made because councils bowed to a few loud objectors.

Planning Matters Alliance had warned the motion represented a step away from empowering local government to represent ratepayers.

EARLIER: REMOVING planning powers from local councils to unelected panels would be a blow for democracy and grassroots decision making, planning advocates say.

A motion is to be considered by the Local Government Association of Tasmania general meeting today.

Sponsored by Burnie City Council, the motion requests that LGAT investigate support for removing the mandatory requirement for a council to act as planning authority for planning permits and development applications.

It proposes investigating the establishment of an independent development assessment panel instead.

“The requirement on a council to act as a planning authority has long caused conflict and confusion,’’ commentary supporting the motion reads.

The motion would put the development approval process in the hands of an independent panel.

“There is an almost irresolvable tension between the general responsibilities of a council as the representatives of the community and its role as a planning authority.”

Burnie Councillor Ken Dorsey, who described the current system as “flawed, archaic, irrelevant and stupid”, said councillors had little choice about how to vote on developments that came before them.

“The problem is that we have a planning scheme and a planning officer who tells us how to think,” he said.

“We’re told we can’t argue with it or it goes to the tribunal. We have no choice, so why ask us?”

He said that only a minority of developments came before elected councillors at any rate and said he hoped the idea gained support.

Sophie Underwood from Planning Matters Alliance Tasmania said the motion would be a step away from empowering local government to represent ratepayers.

“We’re hoping all councils tomorrow will vote against the motion,” she said.

Sophie Underwood state co-ordinator Planning Matters Alliance Tasmania said she hopes councils will vote against the idea. Picture: NIKKI DAVIS-JONES

“It’s illogical for councils to deal themselves out of local planning decisions when it’s the primary way to protect things like local character and amenity and local value and other things that are important to their ratepayers.

“One of the groups that would benefit would be the big developers because planning powers would be stripped away from councils and their developments could be imposed on local communities.

“Why should we resort to such a dramatic and undemocratic change. We want transparency and robust decision making and, in our view, this is a step in the wrong direction.”

She said it was important for councillors to retain their input on developments that were at the discretion of council, for example high-rise proposals in Hobart and developments like that proposed at Lake Malbena.

Lake Malbena lease costs unveiled in parliament

March 9, 2021

THE lease for Halls Island in the Walls of Jerusalem would continue to be $20 a week until a tourism proposal there was complete, state parliament has heard.

A controversial proposal for a tourism development on the island is caught up in the approvals process and the original lease ended in January.

The Greens are demanding Environment and Parks Minister Roger Jaensch reveal if a new lease has been signed and what its terms and conditions are.

Mr Jaensch told parliament the island was currently leased for the equivalent of $20 a week, rising to $76 a week once the development was approved.

“The rental for the Halls Island lease is presently $1050.63 per annum, which will increase to $4000 per annum on practical completion of the development should it be permitted to proceed.”

It was unclear whether Mr Jaensch was referring to the old lease or a new lease. He did not refer to the separate lease which applied to the site of a hut on the island.

“I am advised that the Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service commissioned an independent valuation to determine the lease rental for Halls Island,” he said.

“It is very important we do not treat that as real estate — it is not a shopfront in the middle of Hobart, it is a World Heritage Area.

“We rely on the valuer to put a rent value on it and we take the independent valuer’s advice.”

Greens leader Cassy O’Connor said Mr Jaesnch had not revealed whether a new lease had been negotiated.

“Refusing to tell Tasmanians whether he has re-signed a lease over a priceless island in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area is unacceptable,” she said.

“It is public land – Minister Jaensch owes Tasmanians an explanation. Halls Island is wilderness that should be protected in perpetuity, not gifted in secret by the Liberals to a selected developer for a song.

“Roger Jaensch must come clean. Has he re-signed the exclusive possession lease on Halls Island with Wild Drake, and if so – what was the going rate for the developer?”

Follow @DavidJKillick