Who Controls the Supply of Land in Tasmania? Nobody?

As I have shown previously, ( HERE ) this state with a deficient planning system cannot maximize the productivity of the region. Future governance in Tasmania will be deficient in this small state unless the government takes care of this core business of land supply.

This has led Rob Valentine to say “We can no longer have the luxury of abiding the ad hoc and uncoordinated land use planning decision making of the past.”

The 29 local councils may know about how many lots there are available at the moment in their area but there is no data as far as I can see for the State. There is the possibility that councils are competing for development to be in their local area. There is no modeling on the demand for blocks out over the next 10 years or so that gives any sort of indication of how many lots will be needed.

The councils have local planning schemes that show zones where potentially new developments could occur for different purpose such as residential or industrial land use but there is no control over where the next developments will actually be. Furthermore these schemes can be amended to accommodate new proposals. Hence Tasmanian land use planning is very reactive. First a developer has to decide where he might want to develop some land and possibly make a profit. Some of these decisions seem to be based on very little research and economic modeling. Indeed in some of the smaller settlements it can be a farmer deciding to sell off another paddock or two on the outskirts of town. Only then does the planning system swing into action to determine whether the proposal can proceed or not. This is why national studies say that the Tasmanian planning system is very out of date.

In other states such as NSW the Planning Act clearly states that developers are to pay for the cost of infrastructure for new estates. That is they have to contribute towards roads, drainage, community facilities and downstream and off site costs attributed to a new development. There have been cases where such costs add up to $60,000 per lot in certain areas. In Tasmania these charges are far less transparent with individual deals being done with councils for elements of the development. There remains the question of whether Tasmanian developers are getting a free kick in regard to offsite costs associated with a project or whether the taxpayer is bearing the costs.

However, there has been a big leap forward in planning recently with the production of the Southern Tasmania Regional Land Use Strategy 2010 – 2035 containing some excellent work done primarily by planners Emma Riley and Damian Mackey. This document has now been signed off by the twelve southern councils and is with the Minister for consideration and implementation. The document presents some relatively prescriptive strategies that are good for future land development in the region. It points to the risk of having settlement spread out over the region using land that could be used for better purposes and inefficient in terms of infrastructure. It suggests that new developments should occur primarily within existing settlement areas. More importantly it prescribes that 50% of new development in greater Hobart should be infill development with only the remaining 50% being green field development. It says that over the next 25 year planning period infill development should occur with 40% in Glenorchy, 25% in Hobart, 15 % in Clarence, 15 % in Brighton and 5% in Kingborough.

These are important decisions, because the first thing an experienced planner sees in the urban areas of Hobart is the amount of derelict land and land not used to its best potential. Here I am talking about hard stand parking areas, used car yards, derelict sheds etc that would not remain in any other major Australian city. Urban development has rolled out over these areas and they have not been revisited for urban consolidation. This results in the inefficient use of infrastructure and makes a mockery of the concept of Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD) seen as the most important objective in the other states.

However, there are two major considerations that need to be resolved urgently before these southern regional policies become effective. The first is that the draft strategies for the other two regions (collections of councils) which are the Cradle Coast and the Northern Region are much weaker draft documents, made up of primarily descriptive information and strategies that mean very little. For example one of the strategies from the Northern Plan says “Ensure that industrial zoned and serviced land is available in good strategic locations” and from the Cradle Coast Plan “Land use planning will support economic activity which –respects the link between a healthy environment and a healthy economy and then –is responsive to both economic and natural events at local and world level”. It would appear both documents are very careful to stay away from interdicting the powers of the existing Councils in any way. As they are, such documents would serve little purpose if the Minister was to declare them as formal documents under Sec 30C (3) of LUPAA 1993 and this would hold up progress in the Southern Region for want of consistency.

The second important problem is that all Sec 30 (3) says is that the Minister “may declare a regional land use strategy for each regional area” but is silent on how the plan should be implemented. As it stands a Council could continue to approve development applications that were not consistent with the strategy. It looks as if the southern group of councils is pushing the State government to do something in terms of planning. The state needs to urgently get on with work here.

Without some urgent attention being applied to these issues the planning system remains less than optimal, risking the productivity of the State. How will important infrastructure be put into place without any clear indication and planning as to where new development is to occur? How will land be specifically reserved for industrial and commercial use without a plan? Such a haphazard land use planning system would never exist in the other jurisdictions.

So there is a big hole in the land use planning system in Tasmania given the States lack of interest in the supply side of developed land in this state. The state has no clear mechanisms to encourage infill development in urban areas. How can the government best fix this situation? The state must have a land supply agency. Now I have some experience in this area as a colleague and I set up the legislation for the Defence Housing Authority. That agency managed the 24,000 dwellings worth $2.5 Billion owned by the Commonwealth to house Defence families across Australia. In renewing those dwelling DHA made many many millions of dollars for the Commonwealth Government.

The Tasmanian government has not had such a good run with its agencies. That I believe is because it has not recognized the importance of putting the right people in charge with the right experience to run such agencies. Not just any business person will do. A land supply agency with the right procedures and economic models would very quickly become self funding and then become a very profitable unit for the state. The agency should become a company closely following the model for Tasmanian Irrigation. The company would only need 12 full time people. They would need to be strategic planning people rather than professionals in building or engineering. The company should be prohibited from “hands on” operations and only exert influence via joint ventures with companies that have expertise and a track record in land development. This would remove much of the commercial risk involved. Such a small input from the government could change so much in terms of the efficiency of land supply in Tasmania.

I do apologize to readers that find the above material a bit complicated but it is very important that this stuff gets into the public domain. I could write some of the above in learned international journals but then it would not be read by the intelligent people of Tasmania. Thank goodness for Tasmanian Times. People with expertise should not hold back from helping our state become more productive. Planning is an area where everyone can have an input. I am still learning after many years of being a planner. That is why comments from TT readers provide most important feedback. Eventually the decision makers inside the system will listen to good advice.

The next article will focus on Environmentally Sustainable Development in urban areas.