Tim Morris MP
Greens Spokesperson on Planning
I am not sure if it is well known or not, but the Greens have a very strong interest in and are great supporters of the Tasmanian planning system. We believe that generally it has served us well to date but that successive attempts by governments in the last twenty years or so to restrict public involvement in decisions – and the occasions when the system have been circumvented – have not served the state well.
The other key aspect for us is that we would like to see all land use planning being brought in under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 to create a single regulatory instrument for all planning. The continuing exclusion for marine farming, forestry related matters and Projects of State Significance, etc could and should all be brought in under the one Act.
The Greens are supportive of the general thrust and logic of the current reform in the planning system because it requires state wide consistency but allows some latitude for regional preferences and differences and even some localised variations as long as they are not inconsistent with the higher level plans and strategies.
So far the implementation of the reforms have had mixed results, the best seems to be the thoroughness of the Southern Regional Planning Strategy. At the other end is that some of the northern Interim Planning Schemes are out for informal consultation whilst the Draft Regional Framework (Strategy) that underpins them is yet to be produced in a form that meets the necessary standards to inform the schemes.
The current reform process has not managed to involve communities adequately and has largely been left to the professional planners and aware stakeholder groups. Here it is a case of the more community understanding and involvement the better as it will lead to greater acceptance of planning decisions and ultimately, less conflict and appeals.
A glance at several council websites suggests that keeping their communities informed of progress of planning reform is not on their radar, with a only a couple of exceptions.
There are three key tensions that should underpin the planning system.
Firstly from developers (more particularly their representative bodies) who continue to push for less regulation, so that within certain guidelines they can develop whatever they like with minimal input or control from the community or the regulatory authorities.
Then there is the need by the authorities to ensure that there is sufficient development control to ensure development occurs in an orderly, efficient and safe manner that minimises conflict between uses.
Thirdly there is the community who from time to time wish to be able to modify or reject developments that otherwise might be permitted because of particular concerns over the character of the area, or concerns not adequately captured by the conditions imposed on developments (or even parts of planning schemes) by the planning authorities.
The Greens understand maintaining the balance between the three competing tensions is crucial and we make no apologies for standing up for and seeking to strengthen the community voice and have it fully recognised as an integral part of our planning system. The NIM(or my neighbours)BY syndrome can be harnessed for better planning, not by diminishing community involvement, but by bringing it in at a much earlier stage than when an individual development is being assessed.
The Greens are also strong supporters of State Planning Policies, however it seems that the few that we have seem to have failed to inspire or provide the clarity of direction that they could and should. Whether it is the PAL policy or the recently rejected draft Coastal Policy the suite of policies seem to have lost their way and fallen short of expectations and failed to achieve their original intent.
Finally the most outrageous act against orderly planning in this state in recent times was the Lennon Government overriding of the planning system by providing permits for the Pulp Mill Proposal through the parliament rather than through the RPDC process. It is a wrong that still needs to be fixed if we are to fully restore confidence that the planning rules are the rules and that special favours will not be given to special mates.
In the meantime it continues to cause huge community division, mistrust in politicians who say they want planning to control development until suddenly they decide they know better and brush the system aside. The elusive ‘social licence’ for this project will only be found through the repeal of the PMAA and the application for a planning permit in the normal way.
Elise Archer MP
Shadow Minister for Planning, Tasmanian Liberals
It is no secret that Tasmania currently faces a number of challenges in planning reform and in developing strategies to bring Tasmania up to speed with the rest of the country.
The current planning system in Tasmania has been a stumbling block to development and investment and, as a result, private investment has slumped by 35 per cent in Tasmania in the last two years.
In Hobart there is much talk of the city becoming a more ‘liveable’ city which fosters investment and development, but we cannot do this with a lack of vision and a lack of strategic planning.
This begs the question, where is our much needed Capital City Strategy?
There is a level of concern from industry, local government and the community that there is little progress – and rightly so.
Hobart requires strong and clear long-term strategies to manage population for economic growth, for improving housing affordability and to tackle urban congestion.
Despite the Government’s claims that it is on track to deliver a Capital City Strategy for Hobart by the 1 January 2012 deadline, there is no evidence in place that they will make this deadline.
If Tasmania does not meet the 1 January 2012 deadline, the State will miss out on vital federal infrastructure funding which may jeopardise future infrastructure investment in Tasmania.
I recently held a public forum in Hobart to discuss the need for the Capital City Strategy to be implemented, both in response to fears from industry that Hobart may miss the COAG imposed deadline and because of the lack of information about what the Capital City Strategy actually is.
The forum was a good opportunity for business operators, industry, local government and members of the community to have their say on what the State Government should be doing to facilitate growth in our city.
A number of different views were expressed about what the priorities must be and where growth might be achieved as part of the greater capital city region, with ‘red-tape’ currently featuring as a major impediment to investment.
Another prominent issue is the much needed State Coastal Policy which has been put in the ‘too hard basket’ time and time again by the State Government. The 2004 draft policy has now been completely shelved by the Government, and the outdated original 1996 policy remains in place. The whole review process must now start all over again, effectively wasting seven years.
What is required is a full and comprehensive State Coastal Policy that can deal with all coastal issues, particularly the issue of coastal erosion and liability issues, as well as the wider issue of climate change.
While there is currently a lack of clarity around coastal policy in Tasmania, what is clear is the fact that the State Government’s failure to update the 1996 policy has further hindered local governments and development across the State, including tourism on Maria Island, further developments at the Bay of Fires on the State’s East Coast and the State’s role as an Antarctic Gateway.
It is imperative that any State Coastal Policy developed in Tasmania provides certainty for development, particularly in light of the reported threat of rising sea levels.
Finally, the Liberals take planning policy seriously and have been extremely active in developing policy in this area. We have already announced that we will establish one statewide planning scheme for this State and, as I have already mentioned, we are actively engaged in other areas of planning policy with the aim to make Tasmania an attractive place to do business and in which to live.
http://www.willhodgman.com.au/policy-statements/
Republished with permission from Tasmanian Planner
