Information supplied by the West Tamar Council tells that 917 existing land titles would be effected. Meander Valley Council indicates in their “Report to consider revisions to the Regional Land Use Strategy of Northern Tasmania” that a minimum of 582 land titles would be effected. Two Councils out of eight have been contacted, and already 1499 titles could be caught up in this Rural Resource zoning.
West Tamar Mayor Barry Easther: “One of the main changes to zoning was the introduction of the ‘Rural Living’ zone. Council had been under pressure for this zoning to be introduced as the ‘Rural Resource’ zone. Under the current scheme this was seen to be ‘extremely restrictive’ for owners of relatively small parcels of land to be in a position to build a house and enjoy a rural lifestyle”.
Legislative Council question (Hansard 20/11/2012) asked by Hon. Greg Hall MLC:
Q1) If the issue of contention is one of procedural fairness and property rights, then how does the Minister explain the outcome whereby a simple ‘translation’ of zoning name actually results in very different development regulations that will apply to a property with, in some instances if the TPC advice is followed, prohibitions being imposed where they do not currently exist, nor are they intended to?
Q2) Does this outcome equate to planning reform?
Also an extract from Hansard on 20/11/2012: Ms Tania Rattray (Apsley)
1. It appears that the MVC Interim Draft Planning Scheme which has been approximately 10 years in the making may likely be scuttled on a technicality.
2. If this were to occur then the massive opportunity for additional development in rural and regional areas in the North of the State will be lost. This should not happen at anytime let alone at a crucial economic time as we are experiencing right now.
The Mercury, Thursday, June 17, 2010.
In an article headed: Planning Law Turns Life Sour Sue Neales Chief reporter tells us of a couple in their 80s who faced eviction from their home. The reasons given to the couple were that the local Council “had no record of the cottage ever having been legally approved, despite it having had 3 previous owners who had all been residents and ratepayers without council objection”.
And so the sorry attempts continue to sort out what can only be described as a ‘farce’. Copies of press reports by the Examiner’s Allison Andrews and available in the Parliamentary Library (all dated Jan. 2013) cover a litany of unreasonable planning outcomes which are causing hardship to a great number of our Tasmanians who hold Land Titles in ‘fee simple’.
Quote from just one: ” Bridgenorth man Chris Austin has just about given up on his dream to have his son and family living on the farm next door”.
The article goes on to say that the Austin’s have a rocky 20ha. outcrop which is not even zoned prime-agricultural.
Why is it that these people are supposedly not able to build a home for their son and his family on their land?
The Councils administering the planning schemes are simply carrying out the ‘planning directives’ given to them by the Minister for Planning. So is that where this troublesome and unconscionable set of planning schemes emanate?
Apparently not.
An overview of the planning system and it’s link to Development Applications indicates from where they come, under the following separate headings;
– UNDERSTANDING COMMUNITY NEEDS
– LEGISLATION AND STATE WIDE POLICIES
– PREMIER
– MINISTER FOR PLANNING
– TASMANIAN PLANNING COMMISSION
– REGIONAL COUNCIL BODIES
– STATE AGENCIES
– IMPLEMENTATION THROUGH LOCAL GOVERNMENT PLANNING SCHEMES LOCAL GOVERNMENT
The Tasmanian Planning Commission’s responsibilities are shown to cover:
1. Draft Planning Directives.
2. Assesses planning scheme amendments and planning schemes.
3. Provides advice to the Minister and local government.
4. Provides advice on projects of State and regional significance as well as draft State Policies to the Premier.
Commissioners are nominated by the Minister where they have the relevant experience under section 5 of the Tasmanian Planning Commission Act 1997. There is one full-time Executive Commissioner and 7 part-time Commissioners.
Each Commissioner is certainly well experienced and well qualified to be part of the TPC, so all this raises the question;
Why is this unfair and unreasonable planning scheme being upheld by the TPC so steadfastly?
Who will be the ultimate beneficiary of this planning scheme?
Why are our ordinary family people, such as the family in Bridgenorth, being disadvantaged so badly, when the family land and home is the largest investment most people will ever make?
This should not be allowed to happen, according to excerpts from a High court Ruling by Mr Justice Kirby September 1988:
“Under current laws in Australia, both State and Federal, it is absolutely illegal for the Government ‘to take what it wants’, or indeed to dictate in any way what Property-owners must do or not do with regard to their land held under Deeds in Fee Simple so long as we retain our Common Law Status under our legally unchangeable Christian Monarchical Constitutions, which apply both State and Federally. Certain Politicians are trying illegally to change our unchangeable (except via referendum) Federal Constitution because they want to deny people the right to hold private property under our Monarchical laws”.
If the planning schemes now in existence continue to devalue our land then surely the subject of compensation must be discussed. We have a sworn valuation on the way.
The following is a para. from an article written by Peter Henning in 2009, headed “Look away”.
Whichever way you look at it , this is Tasmanian democracy in action, at it’s best, at it’s purist – because we were provided with a clear view, stripped to the essentials, of how the current Tasmanian Parliament see itself, it’s role, it’s institutional authority, and it’s responsibility to the people. Collectively and unambiguously they see themselves (with some admiral and courageous exceptions) as the representatives of corporate power, not of their constituents.
Wish I had said that, but while I am certainly working with one of the admirable and courageous exceptions, looking at our Parliament even for a short time leaves me with the impression that Peter Henning surely hit the spot.
