TCT observations on the consultation process for development of the Single Statewide Planning Scheme for Tasmania
The TCT is represented on the Environmental and Historic Heritage Consultative Group and can empathise with the Tasmanian Environment Association’s reasons for withdrawing from the group. This group was established by the State Government’s Planning Reform Taskforce, Chaired by Mary Massina, supposedly to provide input to the preparation of the Single Statewide Planning Scheme for Tasmania.
Andrew Ricketts from TEA has provided Tasmanian Times ( HERE ) with the key documents which the Consultative Group members has been given to review (in under three weeks).
I have read the two main documents:
– Tasmanian Planning Scheme – Part A State Planning Provisions December 2016; and
– Tasmanian Planning Scheme: Appendix A2 Zones and Appendix B Zone Application Framework
What concerns me is what we have not been provided with. I note from the contents page of the Tasmanian Planning Scheme that we have not been provided with:
– Part A: codes and some appendices
– Part B: the Local Planning Provisions for each council area
I find it greatly problematic making comments on Part A Statewide Planning Provisions without having Part B Local Planning Provisions – we have not even been provided with an example of a Part B. Similarly, in the absence of the codes in particular we find it greatly difficult to comment on the remainder of Part A.
Documents such as management plans and planning schemes are designed so that each part integrates with and may affect the other parts. Sounds obvious doesn’t it!
Without seeing the entire document how can we know if anything is missing from either the local and state provisions? What occurs if we later find that a matter addressed as a local provision is more appropriately addressed as the state provisions?
We don’t even know whether biodiversity, our key conservation concern, will be one of the codes to be produced. The documents provided to us define the zone types and provide some voluntary and vague Zone Application Guidelines. But we have no idea if councils or the Planning Commission will decide the geographic distribution of zones and can have no confidence that areas of environmental importance will get appropriate zones.
Clearly we should be given a copy of a complete Part B (i.e. an actual example of the Local Planning Provision for a council area) and preferably a few examples to allow some comparison of the varying approaches. We have requested these and as yet no response. We have also requested a copy the codes either in final or draft form.
These questions strike at the heart of the Single Planning Scheme reform and it is critical they be addressed in order to provide any credibility to the consultation process.
Environmental and Historic Heritage Consultative – Terms of reference
The Terms of Reference (ToR) have been provided with no request for feedback. I have put on record with the Planning Reform Taskforce my concern regarding this and that we are constrained by the ToR, in particular to ensure that the ‘State Planning Provisions deliver…’ ‘the Governments intent of a faster, fairer, simpler and cheaper Tasmanian Planning System’. This provision, taken with the list (within the ToR) of what is outside of the Group’s scope, in effect means that we are asked as a reference group to comment only on whether the State Planning Provisions delivers the state government’s policy.
The ToR therefore aims to constrain members of the group to not be critical of the Government’s planning policy which is unacceptable.
Given that the Liberal policy fails to define what a “faster, fairer, simpler and cheaper Tasmanian Planning System” means, it seems that even if we agree with the “Government’s intent” we have no way of knowing whether Tasmanian Planning Scheme accords with it.
So that we are able to provide an effective response we have asked to be provided with guidance as to how we are too measure whether the proposed Tasmanian Planning Scheme meets ‘the Government’s intent of a faster, fairer, simpler and cheaper Tasmanian Planning System’?
That should be a good answer!
Relationship to the Planning Reform Taskforce
I note that the Terms of Reference (ToR) state that the role of the Environmental and Historic Heritage Consultative group is to “work with the Planning Reform Taskforce…”
I note that at Tasmanian Environment Association requested copies of minutes and other records of the Taskforce and these were not provided.
We have asked for guidance on how we can fulfil this ToR if we do not know what the Planning Reform Taskforce is doing?
The Taskforce includes a number of people with significant experience and technical expertise in planning. It would have been productive to provide our group with feedback from the Taskforce’s as to whether the “State Planning provisions are directionally, technically and practically sound” (as per the ToR).
EARLIER on Tasmanian Times …
