Appendix A
Regional Land Use Framework
The Decision Making Principles
Principle 1
Development of the Regional Land Use Framework will:
•
•
•
•
Be a consultative, integrated and iterative process.
Be based on an agreed long-term vision.
Bring together input from all levels of government, the community and industry.
Focus on outcomes, rather than outputs.
Principle 2
Settlement will be planned in a manner that meets the sustainable development objectives of
the Resource Management & Planning System and State Policies. Planning will therefore
integrate input from all levels of government and will aim to achieve sustainable environmental,
social and economic outcomes.
1
Principle 3
The overarching Settlement Strategy (the Strategy) within the Regional Land Use Planning
Framework will include two sub-strategies:
•
•
The Metropolitan Settlement Strategy
The Rural Settlement Strategy
Principle 4
The Metropolitan Settlement Strategy:
4.1!
Will encompass the area in which:
•
•
•
the continuous settled area of greater Hobart is contained,
significant level of daily interaction and cross-region movement for reasons of
employment, access to services and education is encompassed, and
the factors influencing settlement decisions are primarily regional rather than local.
4.2" Will define a nominal 10 year Urban Growth Boundary and a nominal 25 year Urban
Growth Boundary. Land within the 10 year UGB will be zoned appropriately for
development within the new draft planning schemes. Land within the 25 year UGB will
be flagged as intended ‘future urban land’ within the Strategic Framework.
4.3 " Will set forth the preconditions necessary for ‘future urban land’ to be rezoned for
development purposes.
4.4! Urban Growth Boundaries will be defined spatially within the strategy. The boundaries of
such areas will be well defined, but not necessarily to the cadastral level. Final cadastral
level determination will be undertaken at the planning scheme drafting stage, in close
liaison with the relevant Planning Authority.
4.5" The preconditions for ‘future urban land’ to be rezoned for development purposes will be
set so that:
•
the maximum use and benefit of existing and planning infrastructure is achieved,
•
new and existing communities are provided with the appropriate level of services,
both physical and social, including access to employment and recreational
opportunities,
•
the supply of land for residential development does not have an undue impact on
the range of affordability within any one market segment, or overall.
4.6! The poly-centric nature of the greater Hobart metropolitan area will be acknowledged.
4.7! A hierarchy of Activity Centres will be recognised.
Principle 5
The Rural Settlement Strategy:
5.1! Will encompass the area which:
•
is predominantly rural in nature,
•
contains settlements physically, socially and/or economically isolated from the
metropolitan area, and
•
is relatively separate from metropolitan Hobart in that the factors influencing
settlement decisions are primarily local.
5.2! Will acknowledge and identify a hierarchy of Activity Centres.
5.3 ! Will set guidelines for the determination of growth boundaries around rural settlements, to
be applied at the local level, so that:
•
the maximum use and benefit of existing and planning infrastructure is achieved
•
new and existing communities are provided with the appropriate level of services,
both physical and social, including access to employment and recreational
opportunities, and appropriate transport connections to local and major centres
•
housing affordability is not adversely impacted, and
•
up to 10 years projected growth is provided for within the new planning schemes
drafted under the Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project, and
•
up to 25 years project growth is provided for within any intended future growth
areas defined in the Regional Land Use Framework or any local land use strategy
that is consistent with the Regional Land Use Framework.
5.4! Will recognise significant agricultural land and subsequently protect viable and potentially
viable agricultural land from fragmentation and from non-agricultural uses.
Principle 6
Existing LGA Strategies (Local & Subregional) & State Agency Strategies will provide the starting
point the development of regional strategy and changes will only be recommended where there
is a clear benefit to the region.
Principle 7
The Strategy will ensure that physical and community infrastructure, both public and private, is
coordinated and provided in a fair, orderly and sustainable manner, This will be achieved by:
•
Identify the levels of physical infrastructure and social services that are necessary to
achieve the desired growth outcomes.
•
Planning for land use and development in a manner that allows for the logical and efficient
provision and maintenance of infrastructure, including the setting aside of land for the
long term construction of future transport routes and essential services.
Facilitating the efficient use of existing physical infrastructure and human services and
negating development that would generate out-of-sequence demand.
•
!
3
•
•
•
•
Protecting key infrastructure, including ports, airports, roads, railways and service
corridors, from land use and development that would threaten, prejudice, encroach or
conflict with the purpose and function of such infrastructure.
Recognising that the expansion and consolidation of some existing settlements can
improve the economic viability of existing physical infrastructure and social services.
Facilitating consultation with providers of infrastructure, to ensure they have regard to
planning policies and strategic land use planning when making their investment decisions,
in order to ensure that land use and development are closely integrated with the provision
of infrastructure services, and
Using the provision of infrastructure to influence the timing and location of growth.
Principle 8
The Strategy will accord significant weight to sustainable transport modes by favouring:
•
•
•
•
•
Areas serviced by existing and planned public transport.
New communities, (with the exception of new low density rural-living communities) that
contribute to the overall ability of the public transport network to service the region.
Communities serviceable through walking and cycling.
Ease of access to employment, services and recreational opportunities.
Increased densities and multi-use zoning around major public transport nodes.
Principle 9
The Strategy will recognise the need to provide adequate housing choice and opportunities
across the full range of socio-economic groups.
Principle 10
The Strategy will aim to identify and strengthen local sense of place, particularly where valued
highly by the local community.
Principle 11
The Strategy will aim to maintain and improve quality of life by providing for:
•
•
•
•
!
Housing choice and different lifestyle opportunities.
Liveable, efficient, attractive communities.
Safer & healthier communities.
Increasing accessibility.
4
Principle 12
The Strategy will aim to minimise land use conflict.
•
•
•
•
Preventing environmental problems which might arise as a result of siting incompatible
land uses close together.
Protecting agricultural land resources from uses that would result in fettering or
conversion to non-agricultural uses.
Avoiding land use conflicts by separating sensitive and incompatible uses from industry
and other economic activities with off-site impacts.
Protecting areas and sites with significant historic, architectural, aesthetic, scientific and
cultural values from inappropriate land use and development.
Principle 13
Strategically important industrial land will be recognised. The role and relative strength of each
industrial area with respect to the region will be identified and reinforced.
Principle 14
In general, planning will aim to:
•
Achieve appropriate levels of employment, services, retail and education facilities within
each centre so as to reduce the need for cross-region travel.
•
Provide appropriate levels of protection for the region’s highly valued natural assets,
cultural heritage, agricultural land, landscapes, resources, recreation areas.
•
Recognise and account for the region’s development constraints.
•
Provide increased levels of certainty to investors, infrastructure providers, the community,
and decision makers.
Principle 15
A Risk Management approach which aims to avoid or minimise hazards, will be adopted when
identifying opportunities for use and development.
Principle 16
Planning policies and strategies to guide local decision making will be provided in the Regional
Planning Framework
!
5
Appendix B
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS:
REGIONAL MODEL PLANNING SCHEME FOR SOUTHERN TASMANIA
26 Feb 2013
1
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
1. BACKGROUND
THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
This report has been prepared to provide an analysis of the comments provided to the Regional
Planning Project from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and some State Agencies
in regard to the 2nd draft of the Southern Regional Model Planning Scheme. The 2nd draft was
released in several parts between June and August 2012 and was the result of incorporating
submissions made by Councils (predominantly officer level) and some State Agencies in
response to the 1st draft of the Regional Model released in November 2011.
The partner document “Drafting Guidelines for the Regional Model Planning Scheme for
Southern Tasmania” has been similarly updated.
The intention of both documents is to facilitate the Regional Project, the 12 Southern Tasmanian
Councils and the Tasmanian Planning Commission (TPC) in drafting the region’s new planning
schemes.
The version of the Regional Model Scheme produced as a result of the matters outlined in this
report is the base used by the Councils to complete the drafting of their planning schemes for
progression to (informal) public consultation.
THE SOUTHERN TASMANIA REGIONAL PLANNING PROJECT
The Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project is a joint initiative between the State
Government, the STCA and the 12 Southern Tasmanian Councils established under a
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed in late 2008.
The project is being run under the auspices of the STCA and is primarily funded by the State
with the active participation and in-kind assistance of all Councils.
The two major outputs of the project are:
1.
A Regional Land Use Strategy.
2.
A suite of contemporary and consistent draft ʻinterim planning schemes’ for all planning
authorities within the region.
The Regional Land Use Strategy has now been completed, having been endorsed by all
Councils and declared by the Minister for Planning for as a statutory Regional Strategy under the
s.30C of the Land Use Planning & Approvals Act 1993.
The development of the draft planning schemes is now the focus of the Project.
It is noted that, at the time of writing, it is unclear whether the draft schemes will progress as
‘interim’ planning schemes or follow the traditional draft planning scheme development pathway.
2
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
THE REGIONAL MODEL PLANNING SCHEME FOR SOUTHERN TASMANIA
The new planning schemes will be drafted in accordance with the State’s standard Template.
They will therefore be broadly consistent with all other planning schemes currently being
developed across Tasmania. State consistency will exist in layout, zone names & purpose
statements, definitions and administrative provisions. Further state-wide consistency is been
provided by a set of standard zone provisions for residential development in the General
Residential Zone and through a standard code for development in areas at risk of bushfire. In
addition several other State-wide codes are expected to be finalised in 2013.
The majority of planning scheme provisions, however, will not be standardised across the State
and will need to be provided as either common region-wide local provisions through each of the
three Regional Planning Projects or by the individual Councils as genuine local (municipal
specific) provisions.
The Regional Model Planning Scheme for Southern Tasmania is the collation of the regionally
agreed local provisions set within the State’s Template, (and including any finalised state-wide
zone and code provisions).
The primary driver for the provisions of the Regional Model is the need to ensure the
implementation of the Regional Land Use Strategy. A secondary driver is the desire for
commonality between the region’s planning schemes for the sake of greater consistency.
The new planning schemes will therefore include text derived from three sources: the State, the
region and individual Councils.
It is important to note that both regional and individual Council-derived provisions will be ‘local
provisions’ in a statutory sense. Only the State provisions (e.g. the Template and the standard
residential provisions referred to above) will have the status of ‘common provisions’ under the
Land Use Planning & Approvals Act 1993, having been set in place through formal Planning
Directives.
The Regional Model will not be progressed through a Planning Directive process prior to the
advent of the region’s planning schemes. This may be desirable in the future, and would be a
task best pursued by the anticipated regional planning structure that is currently being jointly
investigated by State and Local Government in the region.
Therefore, the Regional Model Provisions will not be statutorily ‘mandatory’, other than in the
sense needed to implement the Regional Strategy.
CONSULTATION ON THE DRAFT MODEL SCHEME
In November 2011 the 1st draft of the Regional Model Planning Scheme for Southern Tasmania
was provided to the Technical Reference Group of local government planners (the TRG), key
State Agencies and other stakeholder entities. Comments were received at the end of 2011.
The 2nd draft was released in sections between June and August 2012 for consideration by
Councils and the TPC’s Advisory Committee. Some State agencies also took the opportunity to
provide comment.
3
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
The 3rd draft of the Regional Model has now been produced. This will form the basis of the new
draft planning schemes that will be subject to a collective consultation process across the region
commencing in April or May 2013. During this time submissions will be called for from the public
on the draft Regional Model Scheme provisions as well as the local content of each scheme.
This will be the first opportunity for the general public to provide input.
The April-May 2013 public consultation process will be ‘informal’, that is; non-statutory. A
second opportunity for the public to provide comment will occur as part of the formal ‘statutory’
public exhibition of the draft planning schemes. This will occur after each Council has formally
submitted a draft scheme to the Minister and it has either been ‘declared’ (in the case of the
interim planning scheme process) or ‘certified’ (in the case of a traditional draft scheme
process).
If the schemes are ‘declared’ to be interim planning schemes they will come into effect at law
immediately upon declaration. The statutory public exhibition, hearings and final approval
process will then follow.
If the schemes are ‘certified’ as draft planning schemes they will be subject to the statutory
public exhibition, hearings and final approval process prior to coming into effect at law.
At the time of writing this report the statutory pathway for the approval of the new schemes was
unclear. Although the Project’ Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between State and Local
Government calls for the new schemes to progress as interim planning schemes, the MoU also
states that Councils will be able to implement the outcomes of their local strategic planning in
their new planning schemes. However, the Solicitor General subsequently advised the TPC that
such changes cannot be included in interim planning schemes unless they are ‘necessary’ to
implement the Regional Strategy. Simply being consistent with the Regional Strategy is not
sufficient. The reason is that interim planning schemes do not provide a formal opportunity for
landowners to contest changes prior to the scheme coming into effect at law. It is understood the
core of the Solicitor General’s advice is that such a denial of natural justice is only allowable if it
necessary to implement the Regional Strategy which is now statutory (i.e. legally mandatory).
4
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
2. KEY ISSUES
The following is a selection of key issues from the table in Section 3.
2.1 Permitted Pathway for Permitted Uses
It is agreed that a use shown as permitted in the Use Table should be afforded a permitted
pathway through the Use Standards.
However, it does not follow that such uses should be afforded a permitted pathway through
development standards.
The Template makes a clear distinction between use and development. They are different
concepts.
The Template clearly confines 'debate' around discretionary applications to the exact reason for
discretion.
Therefore, if the use itself is permitted then the use is not up for debate and must be allowed. If
there is a development issue for which Council has decided not to provide a permitted pathway
for whatever reason, then that is a entirely different issues to the use, and should be allowed for
in the planning scheme.
However, the Regional Planning Project will nevertheless draft Acceptable Solutions for these
development issues, noting that this is a policy call by the TPC, not a technical one.
Acceptable solutions have attempted to be drafted for:
• passive surveillance,
• landscaping,
A number of Councils suggested that Section 9 clauses be added for these issues instead. This
may ultimately be the only possible solution.
2.2 Use Tables
Acknowledged that there needs to be a reasonable degree of flexibility for local tailoring of
allowable uses in some zones.
Local additions to the Use Tables to be possible.
2.3 Regional Exemptions - General
• Community garden on a public reserve.
• Outdoor dining in footpath if in accordance with by-law.
• Bee keeping.
2.4 Regional Exemptions -Limited
• Outbuilding in Rural Living, Rural Resource, Significant Ag Zones
• Works associated with an ACDC-approved dam.
• Renewable energy – wind and solar.
• Change of use from one permitted use to another (with no development or parking
requirement increase)
5
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
2.5 Subdivision – Acceptable Solution for Specific Area Plan
The regional model provides that subdivision is generally discretionary. It is only provided a
permitted pathway through development standards if the particular issue has already been
considered and resolved through a Specific Area Plan (SAP), and the subdivision proposal
concords with that particular aspect of the SAP.
However, it is accepted that cross-referencing from zone subdivisions provisions to any SAP
subdivision provisions is unnecessary as the 7.4.2 provides that the SAP will over-ride.
Therefore: agree to remove these provisions.
2.6 Subdivision – Permitted Pathway Not Allowed by TPC
The TPC has recently had advice from the Solicitor General advising that it is not appropriate for
planning schemes to make provisions for a permitted pathway for subdivision. TPC requests any
offending provisions will need to be reviewed.
Not agreed by Regional project, but subdivision is generally only through performance criteria,
so not an issue.
2.7 Subdivision Standards – Degree of Detail
More detail and separation of issues in residential zones.
Less detail and separation of issues in non-residential zones.
2.8 Codes – Application Requirements / Specialist Reports
TPC advised:
Degree of uncertainty if development standards do not reference / require any of the documents
included in Application Requirements.
Query necessity of definitions if not used in standards.
Discussion:
• Delete, plus accordingly delete from E.15.3 Definitions; or
• Redraft development standards to provide for clear assessment criteria, including
specification for when a management plan / report / study is required; and/or
Review naming of some documents for clarity of issue addressed by report.
Explanation:
It is cumbersome to include the requirement for specific reports within the body of a standard:
• This does not allow the Planning Authority the discretion not to require it (as 8.1.3 of the
Template also provides):
• Standards should refer to the nature of the development or use itself, not to the nature of
the application for the development or use.
It is considered appropriate that schemes indicate that a particular kind of report by a suitably
qualified person may be requested by the Planning Authority to be provided by the applicant in
order to assist it in determining if Performance Criteria are satisfied.
Information additional to that specified under 8.1.3 of the Template pertaining to a matter dealt
with by a Code should be set out in that Code.
By specifying the type of information that a Council may require in relation to specific code
issues, the Southern Regional Model Scheme increases the level of certainty, not decreases it.
6
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
The intention is to put regionally consistent bounds on the scope of such additional information,
thereby increasing certainty by changing the nature of additional information from an
unbounded/unmanaged situation to one that is bounded and managed. This will also provide the
platform for regional consistency between councils.
At the same time it provides the Council with the option not to require it. If a standard requires
the report, then all applications subject to that standard must provide it. This would be
unreasonable in many cases.
The Southern Project considers the way in which the Model Scheme is currently drafted to be
the best way the above principles can be accommodated.
The codes will be redrafted keeping the same format, but endeavouring to be more specific
when reports are required and what the trigger points are.
However, the Regional Project would welcome any other suggests during the informal
consultation process in April / May.
2.9 Building Area in Rural Living, Environmental Living Zones
Reduced from 90 m x 90 m to 30 m x 30 m.
2.10 Building Area - Cross Referencing in Codes
It is not necessary for the scheme to demand that there be one building area that ‘ticks off’ every
relevant code.
Each code is to require a building area that satisfies itself only.
Assume that common sense will prevail and that developers will seek to ensure that the building
areas that satisfy each relevant code will be one and the same thing.
Also assume that creating spatially different building areas on a title that provide for different
issues would be difficult (if not impossible) from a Lands Titles Office point of view.
Therefore we can dispense with codes cross-referencing each other and accord with the TPC’s
PAN13 drafting instruction.
2.11 Visitor Accommodation
Qualification in Use Tables in most Zones for visitor accommodation have been removed and
replaced with a use standard.
2.12 Visitor Accommodation – Unresolved Issue:
It is desirable to clarify under what circumstances the use of a shack becomes ‘visitor
accommodation’. This is currently a gray area of regulation.
o If publicly advertised?
o If let for a period less than 3 months?
o If not by formal lease?
To be resolved.
7
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
2.13 Ancillary Dwellings:
Now has a use standard in most zones.
Note: the sub-clause dealing with shared services needs to be deleted, as this is covered by the
Template definition.
Note: the new definition of ‘single dwelling; in the new draft state-wide provisions for residential
development makes it clear that ‘ancillary dwelling is part and parcel of ‘single dwelling’. This
may mean that the policy of the state is that the two are not treated separately. This is a query
for the TPC.
2.14 Aboriginal Heritage
Planning schemes should advise of every developer’s responsibilities under the Aboriginal
Relics Act 1975.
The State template provides for notes to be included in planning schemes.
Therefore: provide an appropriate note alerting users of planning schemes to responsibilities
under the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975.
Recommend that covering letters accompanying planning permits reiterate this advice.
Once the new Aboriginal Heritage Protection legislation is finalised, some further changes may
be necessary.
(Footnote yet to be written into the model scheme)
2.15 Waterway Buffer Distances – Inconsistency with State Exemptions
The Region Model Scheme provisions (Wetlands and Watercourses Code) match the widths of
Water Quality Protection Areas with the widths in the Forest Practices Code. This alignment is
stipulated in the STRLUS (WR 1.3). This means that there will be variable widths according to
the size of the waterway: e.g. 10, 20, 30 and 40 metres according to the 'class' of the stream.
However, the State Planning Scheme Template appears to assume that all watercourse buffers
will be 30 metres wide regardless of the size of the stream, by virtue of the wording of the
Limited Exemptions, many of which provide that: "xxxx kind of development is exempt, except if
within 30 metres of a watercourse". The State Template thereby presumes that within 30 metres
of any watercourse the scheme will have controls over development specific to the issue of
being in proximity to the watercourse.
To overcome this mismatch, either the State Template or the STRLUS would have to be
amended. However, neither will occur before schemes submitted.
This is considered a relatively minor matter, and something that ‘can be lived with’ until the
Template or the STRLUS can be amended.
2.16 Planning Scheme Objectives
The text in the “Desired outcomes” column should remain standard across all schemes (i.e.
remain blue). These are overarching statements that are generally relevant to all councils. Some
are not and will need to be deleted where appropriate.
The text in the “Outcomes to be achieved by” column should become optional (purple text).
Specific text in this column could then be adopted, deleted or added to for each municipal area.
However, standard approaches to ‘achieve outcomes’ across the region should remain where
possible.
Retention of common numbering and links back to Model Scheme may not be possible.
8
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
2.17 Interpretation:
The TPC Advisory Committee is maintaining a list of new statewide definitions that it has been
endorsing across the three regions. The Regional Model will need to reflect the growing list. As
of November 2012, new definitions include:
access
biodiversity
declared weeds
development area
environmental nuisance
Forest Practices Plan
Level 2 Activity
local environmental weeds
local shop
marine farming shore facility
native vegetation
reserve management plan
streetscape
Traffic impact assessment (TIA)
visitor centre
The TPC Advisory Committee has considered a range of proposed terms and definitions and
concluded that the common (dictionary) meaning suffices for some terms used within a statutory
planning context. As of Nov 2012, these include:
café
commercial vehicle
communal lane
contractor’s yard
curtilage
fill
full line department store
high water mark (and also mean high water mark)
kennel
landslide
physical screening
ridgeline
skyline
supermarket
tenancy
woodyard
9
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
The TPC Advisory Committee has considered a range of proposed terms and definitions and
concluded that some should be rejected on the grounds that the suggested drafting was
inadequate or the term is defined by legislation (i.e. not because the common meaning would
suffice). These have been variously put forward by the three regional projects. As of Nov 2012,
these include:
activity centre
adjacent land
cottage and craft industries / artist studio
discount department store
excavation (but ok to use in code)
external activity area
hardware supplies
landscaped area
late night music venue (but ok to use in code)
local first response
micro-generation
park and ride facility
primary industry
public authority
region
secluded private open space
secondary frontage
self-storage
soil and water management plan (but ok to use in code)
southern region
suitably qualified person
state reserve
Regional definitions created (in addition to TPC Committee’s agreed state-wide definitions) are
as follows:
adult entertainment venue
café
consulting room
holiday cabin
holiday unit
10
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
2.19 Allocation of General Residential Zone to unserviced residential areas.
TPC Advisory Committee has directed that this cannot happen.
2.20 General Industrial and Port & Marine Zones
Standards designed to protect residential amenity of neighbouring residential land have been
eliminated, as such standards undermine the State purpose.
2.21 Light Industrial, Business, Commercial Zones
Standards designed to protect residential amenity of neighbouring residential land operate within
50 m of such land only.
2.22 Subdivision in Rural Resource Zone
New lots – the Regional Model now includes an option to not allow or to allow. A detailed
performance criteria has been developed with a suggested standard common minimum lot size
of 40 ha.
2.23 Operating Hours / Commercial Vehicles Hours / External Lights Hours– Many Zones
Restrictions on these aspects of use are graded:
• Most restrictive in residential zones.
• Less restricted in mixed-use zones.
• Even less restricted in community-type zones, business zones, light industrial zones within 50 m of a residential zone.
• Not restricted in community-type zones, business zones, light industrial zones – if greater
than 50 m from a residential zone.
• Not restricted in General Industrial and Port & Marine Zone (or rural zones)
2.24 Parking and Access Code
• Disabled parking requirement deferred to BCA process to determine. Onus on applicants
to determine this prior to lodgement of DA.
• Option to exempt some zones from its application. (e.g. Village Zone in some villages,
Rural Resource Zone if lot greater than XXX ha, etc)
• TIA required if increase in access use greater than 40 vpd
2.25 Infrastructure Code
• Water, sewer, access connections - Acceptable Solution only is provided. It is assumed
that external regulatory processes under other legislation adequately controls these
connections.
2.26 Construction Management Code
• TPC suggested remove this code. However, it has been retained.
2.27 Attenuation Code
•
Not apply to uses in industrial zones. This would conflict with the purpose of such zones.
2.28 Biodiversity Code
11
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
•
•
Two significantly different options.
o Apply by an overlay or by textural description.
o Include biodiversity offsets or not.
In both cases, the draft code specified that it does not apply to urban development
zones.
2.29 Wetlands and Watercourses Code
•
Suggest expand to include coastal values.
2.30 Historic Cultural Heritage Code
• Note adaptive re-use provision in Section 9.
• Do we need to ‘hide’ sections not used by a council.
• Generation of places table in CMS by ICON.
• For informal consultation - link a pdf of existing list if not inputted into CMS.
2.31 Coastal Hazards Code
• DPAC holding another round of workshops with local government on March 22.
• Potentially could lead to changes to some of this code.
• DPAC overlays – not including the +300 mm freeboard at this point in time. Need to
discuss on 22 March.
• TRG 27-28 February has agreed to include flood prone land provisions, in lieu of a
finalised state-wide code for flood prone land.
12
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
3. ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Comments were received from the following:
(Abbreviations used in the table below are shown in brackets)
•
The Tasmanian Planning Commission (TPC)
(Model Scheme Advisory Committee – November 2012 submission)
•
•
Technical Reference Group (TRG)
Technical Reference Group – metropolitan councils sub-group (TRG-Metro)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Brighton Council (BC)
Central Highlands Council (CHC)
Clarence City Council (CCC)
Derwent Valley Council (DVC)
Glamorgan Spring Bay Council (GSBC)
Glenorchy City Council (GCC)
Hobart City Council (HCC)
Huon Valley Council (HVC)
Kingborough Council (KC)
Sorell Council (SC)
Southern Midlands Council (SMC)
Tasman Council (TC)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE)
The Derwent Estuary Program (DEP)
The Department of Infrastructure, Energy & Resources (DIER)
The Parks & Wildlife Service (PWS)
Heritage Tasmania (HT)
Port Arthur Historic Site Management Authority (PAHSMA)
Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania (AHT)
•
Cement Concrete & Aggregates Australia (CCAA)
The following table provides a summary of the comments and a response with respect to each
part of the model scheme.
13
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
General Comments – Compliance with Higher Order Policy
Compliance with the State’s
Template – PD1
TPC
Review the Regional Model Planning Scheme to ensure it
complies with the format and structure of the Template in
Planning Directive No.1. It may also improve the drafting of the
Regional Model Planning Scheme to give consideration to
those other drafting matters raised in Appendix 2 that are not
mandatory but would bring the Regional Model into greater
conformity with the guidance in Planning Advisory Notes No.13
and 16.
Agree.
The Southern Project maintains that there are
deficiencies in the State’s Template that should be
corrected.
However it is acknowledged that the schemes will
need to be submitted to the Minister in compliance with
the Template, the first instance.
A list of corrections to the Template that are desirable
in the view of the Southern Region will be provided
simultaneously with the submission of the schemes,
and will then be able to be considered during
subsequent statutory assessment processes.
Avoidance of matters already
controlled by LUPAA or
already regulated by other
acts, regulations, etc
TPC
Statements from zone purposes and development standards
that either duplicate matters already controlled under the Act,
or incorporate matters that planning schemes should not
provide for.
Agree.
Section 21 LUPAA requires
planning authorities to consult
with Marine and Safety
Tasmania (MAST) prior to
submitting draft planning
schemes to Minister.
TPC
Initiate the appropriate referrals to adjoining planning
authorities and MAST before draft interim planning schemes
are submitted.
Agree.
To be arranged collectively by the Regional Project.
General compliance with the
Southern Tasmanian Regional
Land Use Strategy – further
consideration needed once full
schemes and maps provided.
TPC
That the Region be cognisant of the prospect that further
issues will arise with submission of draft interim planning
schemes if these have not been considered within the context
of the Regional Land Use Strategy.
Noted.
Altered Template (PD1)
provisions.
TPC
Mandatory
Accurate wording of PD1 required.
(List of inaccuracies cited).
Agree.
Errors to be corrected.
(The TPC is entering the State provisions into the
14
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
CMS)
General Comments – Definitions
Use of defined terms
TPC
Instances of terms incorrectly used. Instances include:
•
“activities”
•
“combined floor area” or “roofed area”
•
“height of buildings”
•
“waterway”
Agree.
Except for the term ‘activity’ as used within the
Attenuation Code. This code has linkages to EMPCA,
and the word ‘activity’ links with that Act.
• “building restriction envelope”
Recommend reviewing the document and make editorial
changes.
Use of defined terms
Terms and definitions
TPC
TPC
Terms are sometimes defined in more than one place, e.g.:
•
the term ‘setback’ is defined in both State Road and
Rail Asset Code and in Clause 4.1.3 (a PD1 provision)
– need to review to be consistent with PD1.
•
the term ‘floor area’ is defined in the Parking and
Access Code’, yet the term ‘gross floor area’ is defined
in Clause 4.1.3 (a PD1 provision) – need to review to
be consistent with PD1.
•
the term ‘Traffic Impact Assessment’ is defined in
both State Road and Rail Asset Code and Parking and
Access Code - the Advisory Committee has endorsed
the addition of the term and definition for ‘traffic impact
assessment’ in Clause 4.1.3 of the Template (see
body of report).
existing floor area
means the area of habitable rooms in a dwelling as at <insert
date>.
Note: The date should not be the effective date of the planning
scheme. It should be a fixed point in time determine by the
State’s coastal policy framework and should not change in
15
Agree:
•
Use alternative term for ‘setback’ wherever not
used as the defined term.
Explanation:
•
‘Floor area’ in parking and access code is
different defined to the meaning of ‘gross floor
area’.
Agree:
•
Delete code definition of Traffic Impact
Assessment. Rely on new state-wide definition
in Clause 4.1.3.
Explanation.
The term is relevant in the Coastal Hazards Code to
extensions of existing habitable buildings.
The intention is to fix a date in time that will be
transferred into future planning schemes, (i.e. never
the ‘specified date’ of any particular planning scheme).
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
future planning schemes.
This term is defined in E.15.0 Coastal Hazards Code, and used
in two development standards relating to Buildings and Works
within the Coastal Inundation Medium and Low Hazard Areas
‘to ensure that floor levels of habitable buildings [dwellings] are
above the likely inundation level for the reasonable life of the
building’.
Query whether this definition is necessary. The inclusion of a
fixed date in the definition will preclude new dwellings built
after the prescribed date, from having ‘building and works’
undertaken. Is this the intention?
This is because the sea level rise does not re-set itself
each time a new planning scheme comes into effect.
New dwellings will not be allowed in some hazard
areas, but extensions to existing will be – but only up
to a certain absolute limit.
General Comments – Permitted Pathway for Permitted Uses
Permitted pathways through
standards for permitted uses.
TPC
Review each use table and relevant identified uses, to ensure
the permit pathway for such uses is clear. Some uses appear
twice in the use table (i.e. both permitted and discretionary)
with no explanatory qualification.
•
Urban Mixed Use Zone (Use Table – Educational and
occasional care, Food services and Passive
recreation).
•
Village Zone (Use Table – Educational and occasional
care & Utilities & Business and professional services).
•
Community Purpose Zone (Use Table - Business and
professional services, Recycling and waste disposal,
Utilities).
•
20.0 Local Business Zone (Use Table – General retail
and hire and Residential).
•
22.0 Central Business Zone (Use Table – General
Retail and hire, and Research and development).
•
23.0 Commercial Zone (Use Table – Tourist
operation).
•
21.0 General Business Zone Use Table – Passive
recreation.
16
Agree, in part.
It is agreed that a use shown as permitted in the Use
Table should be afforded a permitted pathway through
the Use Standards.
However, it does not follow that such uses should be
afforded a permitted pathway through development
standards.
The Template makes a clear distinction between use
and development. They are different concepts.
The Template clearly confines 'debate' around
discretionary applications to the exact reason for
discretion.
Therefore, if the use itself is permitted then the use is
not up for debate and must be allowed. If there is a
development issue for which Council has decided not
to provide a permitted pathway for whatever reason,
then that is a entirely different issues to the use, and
should be allowed for in the planning scheme.
However, the Regional Planning Project will
nevertheless draft Acceptable Solutions for these
development issues, noting that this is a policy call by
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
the TPC, not a technical one.
Permitted pathways through
standards for permitted uses.
DVC
Acceptable solutions should be provided for:
20.4.2 (A1) – Building design – streetscape
20.4.3 (A1) - Building design – passive surveillance
20.6.1 (A2) – Subdivision – Lot size, building area and frontage
21.4.2 (A1) - Building design – streetscape
21.4.3 (A1) - Building design – passive surveillance
23.4.2 (A1) - Building design – streetscape
23.4.3 (A1) – Landscaping
23.4.4 (A1) - Building design – passive surveillance
27.4.3 (A1) – Appearance and sitting of buildings and works
Refer above.
As the above concludes, the Regional Planning Project
will nevertheless attempt to draft Acceptable Solutions
for these development issues.
(Not HVC and BC have provided draft wording for
various proposed new acceptable solutions)
General Comments – Use Tables
Use Tables.
Range of discretionary uses
within zones.
HVC
The range of discretionary uses is often too limited to be
broadly applicable across the Southern Region. Whilst it is
understood that the TPC wish there to be a limited number of
discretionary uses to give primacy to the zone purpose
statements this is challenging as the Scheme’s are being
drafted in a performance based manner. The following will
detail various examples where additional discretionary uses
are necessary and appropriate for local content and it is
requested that these be shown as at least optional in the
regional model.
Acknowledged.
There needs to be a reasonable amount of flexibility for
local tailoring of allowable uses in some zones.
Local additions to the Use Tables should be possible.
Use Tables.
Imposing limits through
qualifications.
HVC
Use qualifications that provide a quantitative upper limit
(particular for visitor accommodation use class) are not
supported. This approach is too arbitrary to be relevant for all
applications of the relevant zone within the Southern Region. It
is requested that these be removed and use standards used in
lieu. (Suggested text provided by HVC)
Agree.
Agree for visitor accommodation.
Not necessarily a fixed rule for all uses limits, however.
General Comments – Relationship to ACDC – Dam Approvals
Assessment Committee for
TRG
It was noted that the ACDC approvals process has, in recent
17
Refer to TPC for consideration, and carriage of
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
Dam Construction:
Scope of Jurisdiction
From
(20/07/12)
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
times, been contracting the scope of its jurisdiction. The
excavation of earth to create the reservoir hollow and to
provide material for the dam wall seems no longer to fall within
the approval processes of the ACDC.
It should be recommended to the State that the jurisdictional
boundary between the ACDC process and LUPAA process
needs to be sorted out so that it is clear and works best in
practice.
discussion through relevant state agencies.
In mean time, provide a regional limited exemption for
works associated with a dam approved by the ACDC
(refer below under Limited Exemptions).
General Comments – Building Area
Size of building envelope in
larger-lot residential zones
BC
90 x 90m rectangle for a building envelope and then a 50m
frontage - too large. – I suggest that it be 30m x 30m and that
the frontage be 30m also. This applies to RLZ and ELZ, and
would seem reasonable for AS’s.
Agree
Building area and setbacks in
Rural Living and
Environmental Living Zones
TRG
(20/07/12)
The 90m x 90m in the draft is too large.
Also, need for variability
It was agreed:
• Setbacks need to be kept variable at the local level.
• Building Area needs to be reduced from 90 x 90
metres to 30 x 30 metres, because:
o Building Area is defined in PD1 and does not
include bushfire protection zones.
o A dwelling may therefore be sited in the corner
of a Building Area, with impacts outside it.
o The metric is the minimum. Most subdividers
will be looking to provide as large a BA as
possible to make lots more attractive to
potential purchasers. (Note that hazard and
values codes will be acting, in many cases, to
reduce the size of BAs).
18
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
General Comments – Setbacks in Rural Zones
Setbacks from Rural Resource
and Significant Agriculture
Zone for sensitive use.
TPC
The Low Density Residential, Rural Living and Environmental
Living Zones all prescribe a setback/buffer of 100m for a
building for a sensitive use with a lot boundary adjoining the
Rural Resource Zone or Significant Agriculture Zone. This is
inconsistent with the Regional Land Use Strategy [Policy
PR1.2] which states ‘Avoid further fettering from residential
development areas by setting a minimum buffer distance of
200 metres to manage land use conflicts’
Setbacks should be increased to 200 m.
Not agreed.
STRLUS PR1 relates to regionally significant
agricultural land only. The setbacks specified in the
Low Density Residential, Rural Living and
Environmental Living Zones for sensitive uses are for
200 metres from Significant Agriculture Zone and 100
metres for Rural Resource Zone.
General Comments – Subdivision
Subdivision – query: why a
Specific Area Plan is
necessary for acceptable
solution.
TPC
Development standards for subdivision in the General
Residential, Inner Residential, Low Density Residential, Rural
Living, Village, Community Purpose and Recreation Zones
(e.g. for General Residential Zone - 10.7.3, 10.7.4 and 10.7.5)
refer to or require compliance with an applicable “Specific Area
Plan” as an acceptable solution. This implies that subdivision
is not appropriate without further strategic planning, contrary to
the Regional Land Use Strategy’s density target/growth
strategy – 50% infill targets (also relevant Zone Purpose – see
discussion in Appendix 2). This is particularly so with respect
to design & arrangement of public open space (versus
arrangements of roads, pedestrian and cycle ways).
Explanation:
The regional model provides that subdivision is
generally discretionary. It is only provided a permitted
pathway through development standards if the
particular issue has already been considered and
resolved through a Specific Area Plan (SAP), and the
subdivision proposal concords with that particular
aspect of the SAP.
However, it is accepted that cross-referencing from
zone subdivisions provisions to any SAP subdivision
provisions is unnecessary as the 7.4.2 provides that
the SAP will over-ride.
Therefore: agree to remove these provisions.
Subdivision – query: why a
Specific Area Plan is
necessary for acceptable
solution.
GCC
Each of the acceptable solutions include a sub-clause relating
to the provisions in a “specific area plan”. This sub-clause is
unnecessary and services to complicate the wording of the
standard. The machinery provisions at cl. 7.4.2 make it clear
that the specific area plan provision prevails in the event of a
conflict.
Applies to: 10.7.2 A1, A2, A3, A4; 11.6.1 A1, A2; 12.5.1 A1,
A2, A3, A4; 13.5.1 A1, A2, A3, A4; 14.5.1 A1, A2, A3, A4;
Agree.
Refer above comments.
19
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
15.6.1 A1, A2, A3; 16.6.2 A1, A2, A3, A4; 17.8.1 A3; 19.7.1
A3; 20.6.1 A3; 21.6.1 A2; 22.6.1 A2; 23.5.1 A1, A2;
24.6.1 A1, A2, A3; 25.6.1 A1, A2, A3; 31.6.1 A1, A2, A3.
Subdivision – a ‘permitted’
pathway should not be
provided.
TPC
The Commission has recently had advice from the Solicitor
General advising that it is not appropriate for planning
schemes to make provisions for a permitted pathway for
subdivision. Any offending provisions will need to be reviewed.
Not agree, in part.
It is understood the SG’s advice is to the effect that the
LG(BMP) Act directs that all subdivision is
discretionary, by virtue of the fact that S.85 of that Act
allows a Council to reject a plan of subdivision if it does
not meet a range of tests detailed in that section.
It is not agreed that it follows that there should be no
acceptable solutions for subdivision standards due to
the action of S.85 of LG(BMP) Act.
Whether subdivision can only ever be discretionary
because of LG(BMP) Act has no relevance to whether
a particular development standard for subdivision in
the planning scheme can provide an acceptable
solution.
The Template philosophy is that ‘discretion’ (and the
third party involvement that accompanies it) is to be
quarantined as much as possible. It would be counter
productive to obliterate perfectly good acceptable
solutions for particular aspects of development simply
because of an over-riding legal ruling that that kind of
development must always be discretionary.
It is noted that the Launceston Interim Planning
Scheme has provided a Part 9 Special Provisions
setting out that all subdivision is discretionary. This
would appear to resolve the matter, whilst retaining
acceptable solutions to some (or even all) subdivision
development standards.
Subdivision – ‘public services’
TPC
In subdivision provisions, a common clause provides for
flexibility for lots for public goods:
E.G. - 11.6.1 A1 except if for public open space, a public
Agree.
Delete reference to ‘public services’
20
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
reserve, public services or utilities in which case the size is as
appropriate for the purpose and site characteristics.
Recommend reviewing to ensure certainty what public services
encompasses.
Redraft to be consistent with use class, and individual uses
within Table 8.2.
Subdivision – POS
Business / commercial /
Industrial zones
TRG-Metro
(22/10/12)
Need to include POS standard.
Need to ensure it allows option for shandying of land and cash.
(Refer CCC draft policy document)
Agree.
Construct a standard for theses zones.
(Potentially include a footnote to reference LGBMP?)
TPC
In the following Codes, a report is defined in the Code and
referred to in additional Application Requirements clause of the
Code:
E.9 Attenuation Code - “site specific study”.
E.12 Geodiversity Code – “geodiversity impact statement”,
“statement of geodiversity significance”
E.13 Local Heritage Code – ”archaeological impact
assessment”, “archaeological method statement”,
“conservation plan”, “heritage impact statement”, “statement of
archaeological potential”, “statement of compliance”,
“statement of significance”
E.13 Significant Landscapes Code – “landscape impact
statement”, “statement of landscape significance”
E.20 Acid Sulfate Soils Code - acid sulphate soil management
plan
E.21 Dispersive Soils Code - “dispersive soil assessment
report”.
E.5 State Road and Rail Asset Code – Traffic Impact
Explanation:
It is cumbersome to include the requirement for
specific reports within the body of a standard:
General Comments – Codes
Codes - Application of
specialist reports
21
•
•
This does not allow the Planning Authority the
discretion not to require it (as 8.1.3 of the
Template also provides):
Standards should refer to the nature of the
development or use itself, not to the nature of
the application for the development or use.
It is considered appropriate that schemes indicate that
a particular kind of report by a suitably qualified person
may be requested by the Planning Authority to be
provided by the applicant in order to assist it in
determining if Performance Criteria are satisfied.
Information additional to that specified under 8.1.3 of
the Template pertaining to a matter dealt with by a
Code should be set out in that Code.
By specifying the type of information that a Council
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Assessment (TIA)
E.23 Onsite Wastewater Management Code – Site and Soil
Evaluation (SSE)
E.11 Wetlands and Watercourses Code – “natural values
assessment”, “soil and water management plan”
E.10 Biodiversity Code (Minimal Version – Overlay) “statement of biodiversity significance” (undefined), “natural
values assessment”, “special circumstances justification report”
(undefined)
E.10 Biodiversity Code (Textural application, with offsets) –
“statement of biodiversity significance” (undefined), “natural
values assessment”, “special circumstances justification report”
(undefined), “offset plan” (undefined), “site plans, photographs,
species surveys or other detail ….”
E.15 Coastal Hazards Code - ‘coastal vulnerability report’, ‘
coastal works management plan’; ‘erosion risk management
plan’; and ‘inundation risk management plan’
may require in relation to specific code issues, the
Southern Regional Model Scheme increases the level
of certainty, not decreases it.
The intention is to put regionally consistent bounds on
the scope of such additional information, thereby
increasing certainty by changing the nature of
additional information from an unbounded/unmanaged
situation to one that is bounded and managed. This will
also provide the platform for regional consistency
between councils.
At the same time it provides the Council with the option
not to require it. If a standard requires the report, then
all applications subject to that standard must provide it.
This would be unreasonable in many cases.
The Southern Project considers the way in which the
Model Scheme is currently drafted to be the best way
the above principles can be accommodated.
The codes will be redrafted keeping the same format,
but endeavouring to be more specific when reports are
required and what the trigger points are.
However, the Regional Project would welcome any
other suggests during the informal consultation
process in April / May.
Degree of uncertainty if development standards do not
reference / require any of the documents included in
Application Requirements.
Query necessity of definitions if not used in standards.
Discussion:
•
Delete, plus accordingly delete from E.15.3 Definitions; or
•
Redraft development standards to provide for clear
assessment criteria, including specification for when a
management plan / report / study is required; and/or
Review naming of some documents for clarity of issue
addressed by report.
More input needed.
KC
General comment on Codes – they require substantive further
work and ideally more formal input from relevant experts,
including State Govt
22
(A question remains as to whether a new paragraph
needs to be added at the end of 8.1.2 or 8.1.3 that
recognises that other information (i.e. not mentioned in
8.1.2 or 8.1.3) may be specifically required through
other parts of the scheme.)
Comment noted.
It is noted, however, that expert input must be hand-inhand with policy formulation.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Tasmania generally has been very poor in this aspect
of its planning system.
General Comments – Cross Referencing
Building Area – cross
referencing in codes
Discussion
with TPC
The Template warns against cross-referencing between
scheme provisions.
The Regional Model provisions do this especially in regard to
code provisions dealing with ‘building area’.
Building area is defined in the template as ‘an area shown on a
plan of subdivision to indicate where all buildings will be
located’.
The Model Scheme includes cross referencing between codes
in an attempt to ensure that for any new lot there is a ‘building
area’ that is acceptable for all applicable values and hazard
codes.
At the time of subdivision, it should also be ensured that the
‘building area’ is able to be accessed, not too steep, able to be
serviced, etc.
In other words, the subdivision process defines a building area
on each lot in which a dwelling will be a permitted use despite
the fact that many hazard and values overlays might apply.
The subdivision assessment process has ‘pre-approved’
development in the building area as far as these codes are
concerned.
Note that it would be possible to seek approval to build outside
the building area, but this would then trigger the code(s) and
would become a discretionary application. The applicant would
then need to get all the necessary expert reports done.
Resolution:
It is not necessary for the scheme to demand that
there be one building area that ‘ticks off’ every relevant
code.
Each code is to require a building area that satisfies
itself only.
Assume that common sense will prevail and that
developers will seek to ensure that the building areas
that satisfy each relevant code will be one and the
same thing.
Also assume that creating spatially different building
areas on a title that provide for different issues would
be difficult (if not impossible) from a Lands Titles Office
point of view.
Therefore we can dispense with codes crossreferencing each other and accord with the TPC’s
PAN13 drafting instruction.
It is unclear if all current specified departures can be
accommodated (where required/still relevant) within individual
zones and codes.
Explanation:
It is understood from the TPC that Specified
Departures are to be accommodated as qualifications
in the Use Tables.
General Comments – Specified Departures
Specified Departures
GCC
23
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Whether this can accommodate all Specific Departures
can only be determined as Councils complete their
local provisions.
General Comments – Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
CPTED
Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design
HCC
Suggest Part C Section 9 provisions for this as they are
duplicative in the content and generate excessive discretion
through lack of measurable Acceptable Solutions).
The creation of meaningful Acceptable Solutions for
CPTED principles may be difficult. A general power in
Part C Section 9 may be the only option.
However, next draft of regional model to attempt to
include an AS for this issue.
CPTED
Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design
TRG-Metro
(22/10/12)
Seems not possible to write AS for this matter.
Suggest Part C Section 9 provisions for this it would otherwise
generate excessive discretion through lack of measurable
Acceptable Solutions).
The creation of meaningful Acceptable Solutions for
CPTED principles may be difficult. A general power in
Part C Section 9 may be the only option.
Refer below, however. Next draft of regional model to
attempt to include an AS for this issue.
CPTED
Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design
BC
Suggest the following (20.4.3 and similar inn other zones)
AS = Buildings design must:
(a) locate windows to overlook the street and other public
spaces;
(b) locate external lighting to illuminate otherwise shaded or
dark locations;
(c) incorporate shop front windows and doors for ground
floor shops and offices, so that pedestrians can see into the
building and vice versa;
Agree – potentially.
Next draft of regional model to attempt to include an
AS for this issue.
Adopt wording, or similar.
PC = Buildings design must provide for surveillance of public
spaces, including the street, service and car parking by
satisfying all of the following:
(a) design and locate main entrances to provide high visibility
for users;
(b) provide clear sight lines between a building and adjacent
properties and public land;
24
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
(c) avoid creating entrapment spaces around the building
site, such as concealed alcoves near public spaces;
(d) provide well lit car parking areas designed to make use of
sight lines to benefit from passive surveillance.
CPTED
Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design
HVC
Suggest Acceptable Solutions for CPTED.
Consider when redrafting (refer above)
CPTED
Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design
TRG
23/07/12)
The passive surveillance and landscaping standards ought to
have acceptable solutions so that there is a permitted pathway
for developments designated as ‘permitted’ in the Use Table.
(The difficulty in drafting such provisions is recognised,
however.)
Agree.
General Comments – Streetscape
Landscaping / streetscape
TRG
23/07/12)
The passive surveillance and landscaping standards ought to
have acceptable solutions so that there is a permitted pathway
for developments designated as ‘permitted’ in the Use Table.
(The difficulty in drafting such provisions is recognised,
however.)
Agree.
Landscaping / streetscape /
urban design
TRG-Metro
(22/10/12)
Seems not possible to write AS for this matter.
Suggest Part C Section 9 provisions for this it would otherwise
generate excessive discretion through lack of measurable
Acceptable Solutions).
The creation of meaningful Acceptable Solutions for
landscaping/streetscaping may be difficult. A general
power in Part C Section 9 may be the only option.
Refer below, however. Next draft of regional model to
attempt to include an AS for this issue.
Streetscape
Suggested Acceptable
Solution
BC
Regarding currently no AS for LBZ and GBZ - Clause 20.4.2: I
suggest that the AS is Parts a), b) ( i) only) and e) from the
performance criteria and the performance criteria becomes the
remainder. Ie:
AS = Building design must:
(a) address the frontage and any other public space,
including an internal car park, by the orientation of windows
and by public access at ground floor level;
Agree.
Adopt suggested wording, or similar.
25
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
(b) providing direct public access at the ground floor level;
and
(c) screen outdoor storage from public view;
PC = Building design must contribute positively to the
streetscape by satisfying all of the following:
(d) make a positive contribution to the activities of the
streetscape by:
(i)
providing direct public access at the ground floor level;
(ii) avoiding expanses of blank walls facing a road;
(e) minimise visual intrusiveness of roof-top service
infrastructure, including service plants and lift structures, by
integrating them into the roof design;
(f) provide compatible footpaths with adjoining public
footpaths;
(g) screen outdoor storage from public view;
(h) be consistent with any Desired Future Character
Statements provided for the area.
General Comments – Visitor Accommodation
More scope of ‘visitor
accommodation’ generally
TRG
(20/07/12)
It was agreed the scope of visitor accommodation in the draft
regional provisions is too restrictive generally, across a range
of zones.
26
Alternative solution:
• Remove qualification to ‘visitor accommodation’ in
Use Tables generally.
• Deal with the issue through a use standard.
• It is desirable to clarify under what circumstances
the use of a shack becomes ‘visitor
accommodation’. This is currently a gray area of
regulation.
o If publicly advertised?
o If let for a period less than 3 months?
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
o If not by formal lease?
(Issue to be resolved!)
General Comments – Standards - Miscellaneous
Standards.
General structure of standards
needs to allow local content to
be readily added.
HVC
The structure of many acceptable solutions do not readily
permit local content for a particular area. For instance, it may
be appropriate that the height for the Local Business Zone be
tailored to suit the character of a particular area that cannot
easily be incorporated into the acceptable solutions as drafted.
Agree.
Revise general structure to provide for local content to
be at end.
(This also facilitates CMS implementation).
Site coverage standards.
HVC
Some use of Site Cover use both a proportion and a maximum
area (eg 12.4.6 A1) however the term is defined as being a
proportion only. For some zones, it may be appropriate to
specify the proportion depending on the size of lots to ensure
the standard is appropriate for sub‐minimum, minimum and
larger lot sizes that may exist in any one zone. For instance, in
the Low Density Residential Zone the acceptable solution
could read:
“Site coverage must comply with all of the following
(a) Not more than 30% for a lot less than 1500m2
(b) Not more than 20% for a lot between 1500m2 and 2000m2
(c) Not more than 15% for a lot greater than 2000m2”
Agree.
Adopt suggested wording or similar.
All zones in relation to
development involving the
construction of a building,
carrying out of works
associated with the
construction of a building,
works associated with
subdivision and the
construction of roads
KC
Include provisions to protect and retain large trees and
environmental values where practicable. This is a key issue
for Kingborough and a gap both in our current Scheme outside
the EMZ and Isolated Settlement Overlay and in the model
scheme. While loss of trees of high conservation value may be
inevitable, we should at least expect development to retain
them to the extent practicable and offset the loss where it’s not
practicable.
If this is not appropriate/supported at the regional level this
could be a local provision.
Not agree.
These values to be recognised and protected through
a biodiversity code (with the exception of the
Environmental Living and Environmental Management
Zones).
For ‘urban’ zones, the strategic decision to apply these
zones to an area involves acknowledgement that any
residual natural values will be lost to urban
development. (The only exception is for natural values
along watercourses and wetlands, which will be
27
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Could either be included in zone provisions but would be
repetitive or could be included in the Biodiversity Code but with
qualifier that it only applies if a development application
otherwise required (ie doesn’t in and of itself trigger a
discretion and require a DA. (Draft wording proposed by KC).
retained through the Watercourses and Wetlands
Code).
Clearing of native vegetation.
HVC
Where a standard references the clearing of native vegetation
it would be appropriate, if only for the sake of certainty, to
specify that this clearing is taken from the commencement of
the scheme. In other words, the assessment is based on what
was there rather than what is there now for situations where
developers get ahead of themselves. It would potentially help
to avoid unauthorised clearing in advance of a planning
application.
Explanation:
If clearing occurs in advance of a planning application
it constitutes illegal works (if a planning permit should
have been required under the planning scheme).
It is therefore not necessary for the scheme to specify
‘from the commencement of the scheme’.
Setback standards in some
zones to the Rural Resource,
Significant Agriculture and
Environmental Management
Zones.
TRG
(20/07/12)
These are couched in the standard way: i.e. a setback from a
boundary. However, there may be a road, or other land, in
between. Should the setback distance apply regardless?
It was agreed:
• Yes: the setback distance should apply
regardless if there is a road, or other land, in
between.
• This is because impacts from resource
development activities exist over a distance,
regardless of whether there is intervening land in
other owner ship.
•
Need to re-write the provision to clarify it is a
‘separation from’ distance, not a ‘setback from’
distance.
Aboriginal Heritage
Planning schemes and
Aboriginal heritage
AHT
(to HVC)
(Councils) should be more considerate of impacts on
Aboriginal heritage sites.
Prior to development, (Councils) should advise proponents that
they should contact AHT to determine whether there is
Aboriginal heritage present in the area proposed for
development, and further whether there is a risk to Aboriginal
heritage posed by the development.
28
Agree.
Planning schemes should advise of every developer’s
responsibilities under the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975.
The State template provides for notes to be included in
planning schemes.
Therefore: provide an appropriate note alerting users
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Current legislation is the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975. Note that
there is the Aboriginal Heritage Protection Bill out for public
consultation.
of planning schemes to responsibilities under the
Aboriginal Relics Act 1975.
Recommend that covering letters accompanying
planning permits reiterate this advice.
Once the new Aboriginal Heritage Protection
legislation is finalised, some further changes may be
necessary, (although it is understood the legislation will
operate in coordination with LUPAA planning schemes
just as cultural heritage and environmental
management legislation does).
Need to defined ‘forestry’, include it in Resource Development
use class, and provide for it to be NPR in the Rural Resource
Zone, and Discretionary on Prime Ag Land in the Significant
Agriculture Zone.
Explanation:
‘Forest operations’ is defined in the Template – and
relates to the definition in the Forest Practices Act.
Need to ensure wherever he scheme refers to ‘forestry’
this is changed to ‘forest operations’.
Forestry
Planning schemes and
forestry
FIAT
(to HVC)
General Comments – Degree of Commonality,
Degree of commonality
possible – major urban zones
TRG
(23/07/12)
In general, there is likely to be more justification of local
differences in zone provisions between the big metropolitan
councils than other Councils.
o For example; the Commercial Zone will be used in three
quite different situations in Hobart, Glenorchy and
Clarence.
o Also, each of the major CBDs are different and each of the
Councils will have different visions. Therefore, the major
business zones will have differences for these councils.
Noted.
Agree.
PAN13 requires “if” to be used instead of “where”.
Recommend reviewing the document and make editorial
Agree.
‘Where to change to ‘if’, if appropriate.
General Comments – Good Drafting
“Where” vs “If”
Standards - P1 Building
TPC
29
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
height, P1 Design, Siting and
Appearance for Buildings
other than Single or Multiple
Dwellings.
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
changes.
However, good drafting practice is to use ‘where’ when
referring to place (i.e. the issue is ‘spatial’). This
principle is contained in the regional drafting guidelines
and will be used if appropriate.
“Must” vs “Will”
P1 setbacks, height and
design adjoining a residential
zone.
TPC
PAN 13 requires “must” to be used instead of “will” when
expressing a mandate or the words “is to” where giving a
direction.
Recommend reviewing the document and make editorial
changes.
Agree.
Use of “or/either”/”one of” and
“and/any of/all of”
Setback from frontage A1
(various zones) & 27.3.1 Use
Standards
TPC
A number of lists are used. The Regional Model Planning
Scheme does not use “;or/and” rather uses “either/one of/ all
of”. For consistency of terminology and certainty for
compliance, only one instruction for equivalent of “or/and”.
Replace “either” with “one of”
Replace “any of” with “one of”.
Agree.
This is part of the intention to eliminate the need for
conjunctives in lists in the Regional Model.
TPC
Sections are lengthy and repetitious of the Southern Regional
Land Use Strategy 2010-2035 (RLUS).
Description should be brief with intent of showing how the
planning scheme is consistent with and furthers the objectives
and outcomes of the Regional Land Use Strategy only.
Query:
The PAN 13 instruction of “brief with intent of showing
how the planning scheme is consistent with and
furthers the objectives and outcomes of the Regional
Land Use Strategy” does no appear possible.
It is suggested that, in order to state how the planning
scheme is consistent with and further the objectives of
the STRLUS, it must state them. This is essentially the
content of the ‘desired outcomes’. The second column
then described what the scheme does in order to
achieve them.
In the absence of an example from the TPC, it is
suggested that the structure and detail provided in the
Regional Model is simply that which is necessary to
2.0 Planning Scheme Purpose
2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3
Planning Scheme Purpose
30
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
properly achieve the aim of the PAN13 instruction.
2.2.4
Planning Scheme Purpose
Municipal Setting
HCC
Note: statistics to be updated for 2011 Census
Agree.
The current STRLUS is based upon 2006 census data.
Upgrading to the 2011 data is to be a high priority.
Region Project has no resourcing to update to the
2011 census.
In early 2012 the 12 Southern Councils endorsed a
mooted agreement with the State Government for a
50/50 funding arrangement to re-start strategic
planning work. The State rejected this, however.
How should the text provided in the proposed regional model
be modified to suit individual Councils?
It was agreed the best approach is:
3.0 Planning Scheme Objectives
Modification to enable local
tailoring.
Identification of local areas.
Regional
Project
(TRG
20/07/12)
Regional
Project
(TRG
20/07/12)
Section 3.0: How should the “Insert Name” be filled in when,
for example, some zones will be applied in many small
scattered areas – such as the Local Business Zone? Do
schemes need to state the name of each and every locality
where the zone is used?
31
•
The text in the “Desired outcomes” column should
remain standard across all schemes (i.e. remain
blue). These are overarching statements that are
generally relevant to all councils.
•
The text in the “Outcomes to be achieved by”
column should become optional (purple text).
Specific text in this column could then be
adopted, deleted or added to for each municipal
area. However, standard approaches to ‘achieve
outcomes’ across the region should remain where
possible.
It was agreed the best approach is:
•
For zone application to the larger (and therefore
fewer) areas, these localities / suburbs / towns
should be mentioned by name.
•
For zone application to numerous smaller areas,
these kinds of areas should be mentioned by
generic description / type. For example, where
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
the Local Business Zone is used to recognise and
provide for numerous small clusters of local
shops scattered in many parts of a metropolitan
area.
Various draft regional
statements.
HCC
HCC have modified various draft regional strategy statements
under ‘outcomes to be achieved by’.
Agree.
These regional statements under outcomes to be
achieved by’ will need to be tailored somewhat to suit
each municipal area.
3.0.2 – R (Metro)
(Application of General
Residential Zone to
unserviced suburbs.
TPC
3.0.2 – R (Metro) Outcomes to be achieved by (f)
Inconsistent with General Residential Zone Purpose …where
full infrastructure services are available or can be provided.
Delete or Redraft.
Agree.
Rewording necessary to reflect that the zone applies to
areas ‘where full services are provided or can be
provided’.
3.0.3 - R
HVC
Show 3.0.3 R as optional as many provisions will be optional.
Advice is required on preferred wording. For instance,
references to Commercial Zone and Village Zone are difficult
to complete as the application of the zone may be within an
activity centre as well as other sites outside of activities
centres. For instance, there are several instances of current
‘spot’ industrial zoning in existing residential areas, which
Council would prefer to see zoned ‘Commercial’ in a new
scheme. Is it envisaged that each application of the zone
would be stated in the zone purpose or are more general
statements of the type of land zoned Commercial appropriate?
Agree.
Show as optional.
Reword.
3.0.5 – R (b) (Outcomes)
HVC
3.0.5 R (b) (‘Outcomes’) – consider use of terms ‘ancillary’ and
‘subservient’ particularly with respect to Clause 8.2.2. Terms
such as ‘compliment’, ‘support’, ‘maintain’ ‘additional income
stream’ may be of more use.
Explanation.
The terms ‘ancillary’ and ‘subservient’ are recognises
planning terms.
Retain.
3.0.6 – R
Natural Environment –
Regional Objectives
TPC
Natural values, native veg, biodiversity section considered too
open and anti-development, pro-green.
Agree that section needs rewording.
Natural values should be predominantly taken into
account in the creation of the planning schemes,
especially the spatial allocation of zones and overlays.
Such decisions should predominantly be strategic
32
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
decisions, not pushed down into operational decisions.
The words of 3.0.6 require rewording.
Planning Scheme Objectives –
rationale for provisions in
zones
TPC
Planning scheme objectives are not reflected in the zones. For
example:
Zone purposes for Urban Mixed Use and Inner Residential
Zones do not reflect 3.0.2 – R (Metro), Outcomes to be
achieved by: (e) which states: Facilitating densification within
inner urban areas in close proximity to the larger activity
centres and integrated transit corridors through use of the
Inner Residential and Urban Mixed Use Zones and facilitating
higher density dwelling types through zone standards”.
Redraft – additional zone purpose statement(s) should be
included
Not agree.
The additional regional zone purpose statement for the
Inner Residential Zone expressly refers to using this
zone where densification is desired.
TPC have pointed out that this conflicts with the State
purpose statement.
This may be so. If it is, then this needs to be discussed
and potentially changed as part of the TPC
assessment of the schemes, wherein necessary
changes to State provisions can be initiated.
Planning Scheme Objectives –
rationale for provisions in
zones
TPC
Planning scheme objectives are not reflected in the zones. For
example:
Drafting and subdivision standards for subdivision in General
Residential Zone (i.e. 10.7.2 objective (c) and Table 10.1)
overlap with the Inner Residential Zone purpose and net
density targets. This is inconsistent with 3.0.2 – R (Metro),
Outcomes to be achieved by: (h) which states:, “Applying the
Inner Residential Zone to inner urban areas where full services
exist, in close proximity to good public transport, services,
facilities and employment opportunities”
2
Redraft - The minimum lot size of 400m under Table 10.1 for
lots close to services, for instance, provides for an overall net
density of 25 dwellings/ha which is the same as the Inner
Residential Zone. A separate purpose statement or redrafting
to ‘tighten’ the application of Table 10.1 may address this
issue.
Agree.
Red-draft zone provisions.
TPC
The TPC Advisory Committee is maintaining a list of new
Noted.
4.0 Interpretation
Inclusion of any definitions for
33
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
which the TPC Advisory
Committee has put forward
state-wide definitions.
From
Comment or Suggestion
Mandatory
statewide definitions that it has been endorsing across the
three regions. The Regional Model will need to reflect the
growing list. As of Nov 2012, new definitions include:
access
means land over which a vehicle enters or leaves a road from
land adjoining a road.
biodiversity
means biological diversity as defined under the Nature
Conservation Act 2002.
declared weeds
means as defined in the Weed Management Act 1999.
development area
means the area of land occupied by development including its
yard, outbuildings, car parking, driveways, storage areas,
landscaping and wastewater disposal areas.
environmental nuisance
means as defined in the Environmental Management and
Pollution Control Act 1994.
Forest Practices Plan
means a Forest Practices Plan under the Forest Practices
Code 2000.
Level 2 Activity
means as defined under the Environmental Management and
Pollution Control Act 1994.
34
Regional Project Response
The Regional Model will need to be continually
updated to accommodate newly endorsed state-wide
definitions.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
local environmental weeds
means weeds listed in Table E. <insert reference>
local shop
means land used for the sale of grocery or convenience items
2
where the gross floor area does not exceed 200 m .
marine farming shore facility
means use of land to provide on-shore support infrastructure
and facilities for off-shore aquaculture but does not include
processing of fish.
native vegetation
means plants that are indigenous to Tasmania including trees,
shrubs, herbs and grasses that have not been planted for
domestic or commercial purposes.
reserve management plan
means a management plan prepared under the National Parks
and Reserves Management Act 2002, the Wellington Park Act
1993 or the Living Marine Resources Act 1995, or a plan of
management prepared for an area reserved under the Crown
Lands Act 1976.
streetscape
means the visual quality of a street depicted by road width,
street verge planting, characteristics and features, public
utilities constructed within the road reserve, the setbacks of
buildings and structures from the lot boundaries, the quality,
scale, bulk and design of buildings and structures fronting the
35
Regional Project Response
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
road reserve.
For the purposes of determining streetscape with respect to a
particular site, the above factors are relevant if within 100
metres of the site.
Traffic impact assessment (TIA)
means a study prepared by a suitably qualified person that
shows the likely effects of traffic generated by use or
development on the local environment and on the road or
railway networks or both in terms of safety, efficiency and
amenity, having regard to present and assumed future
conditions. It includes recommendations on measures to be
taken to maintain the safety and efficiency of the road or
railway networks.
visitor centre
means land used for the principal purpose of providing
information to tourists and may include incidental retail sales
and supplementary services to tourism.
Exclusion of any definitions for
which the TPC Advisory
Committee has concluded the
common (dictionary) definition
suffices.
Noted by
Regional
Project
The TPC Advisory Committee has considered a range of
proposed terms and definitions and concluded that for some
the common (dictionary) meaning suffices for use with a
statutory planning context. As of Nov 2012, these include:
•
café
•
commercial vehicle
•
communal lane
•
contractor’s yard
•
curtilage
•
fill
•
full line department store
36
Noted.
The Regional Model not to include terms and
definitions that the TPC Committee has determined are
not needed due to the common (dictionary) meaning
be sufficient.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
Exclusion or re-drafting of any
definitions for which the TPC
Advisory Committee has
rejected a proposed definition
on grounds other than the
common (dictionary) definition
suffices.
From
Noted by
Regional
Project
Comment or Suggestion
•
high water mark (and also mean high water mark)
•
kennel
•
landslide
•
physical screening
•
ridgeline
•
skyline
•
supermarket
•
tenancy
•
woodyard
The TPC Advisory Committee has considered a range of
proposed terms and definitions and concluded that some
should be rejected on the grounds that the drafting is
inadequate, the definition is not necessary, or the term is
defined by legislation (i.e. not because the common meaning
would suffice). These have been variously put forward by the
three regional projects. As of Nov 2012, these include:
•
activity centre
•
adjacent land
•
cottage and craft industries / artist studio
•
discount department store
•
excavation (but ok to use in code)
•
external activity area
•
hardware supplies
•
landscaped area
•
late night music venue (but ok to use in code)
•
local first response
•
micro-generation
•
park and ride facility
37
Regional Project Response
Noted.
The Regional Model will need to be updated to remove
any newly proposed terms and definitions rejected by
the TPC Advisory Committee.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
4.1.3
‘adult entertainment venue’
– proposed definition
From
HCC
Comment or Suggestion
•
primary industry
•
public authority
•
region
•
secluded private open space
•
secondary frontage
•
self-storage
•
soil and water management plan (but ok to use in
code)
•
southern region
•
suitably qualified person
•
state reserve
The draft model scheme needs a definition of ‘adult
entertainment venue’. The current CHPS has one for ‘sexually
explicit adult entertainment’ which was the subject of legal
input and a TPC hearing a couple of years ago if you want to
use it:
‘sexually explicit adult entertainment’ means the use of land for
the purpose of:
(a) providing nude or semi-nude dancing or performances,
erotic dancing, strip-tease acts, lap-dancing, table-top
dancing, private dancing of a sexually explicit nature,
performances of a sexually explicit nature, peep shows,
nude or semi-nude bar/waiting staff; or
(b) selling, showing, exhibiting, displaying or otherwise
rendering accessible or available to the public sexually
explicit restricted material (such as adult book shops and
novelty stores); or
(c) providing all other forms of sexually explicit entertainment
for adults only, and may include provision of food and
drink.
(‘Semi-nude’ means that the breast/s and/or buttock/s and/or
38
Regional Project Response
Agree.
Use suggested words, or similar.
Note that the HCC definition extends beyond
‘entertainment venue’ to retailing.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
genital area are exposed.)
4.1.3
‘cafe – proposed definition
HVC
Is a definition of cafe necessary? If so, should restaurant also
be defined? The Macquarie English Dictionary defines a cafe
in various ways, one of which is simply as “3. a restaurant,
usually low‐ priced”. How do you determine if a meal is a light
meal? The defined term ‘café’ does not appear to be
particularly necessary and at the very least its use should be
optional. Use standards that consider scale, access to and
hours of the food services use class may be more appropriate
rather than arbitrary descriptions such as ‘light’ meals.
Agreed.
TPC Advisory Committee have now concluded the
dictionary meaning of ‘café’ is sufficient.
4.1.3
‘communal residence’ –
template definition.
HVC
The examples included ‘boarding house’, but ‘boarding house
is also separately defined.
Noted:
Would appear TPC needs to amend State Template.
4.1.3
‘consulting room’ - proposed
definition.
HVC
Include a definition of consulting room (*). ‘Consulting room’ &
‘medical centre’ are uses described for the Business and
professional services use class but only ‘medical centre’ is
defined. There seems to be an uncertain relationship between
a medical centre as defined and the common understanding of
a consulting room. (Draft definition provided by HVC).
Refer proposed definition to TPC Advisory Committee.
4.1.3
‘crop raising’ - template
definition.
HCC
Template Section 4.1 defines ‘crop raising’
Template Section 8.2 refers to ‘crop production’ under the
resource development Use Class.
Noted:
TPC needs to amend State Template.
4.1.3
‘holiday cabin & holiday unit
- proposed definition.
HVC
Include a definition of holiday cabin & holiday unit (*). The
‘serviced apartment’ use as defined is (in summary) a
furnished, self‐ contained room(s) designed for short‐ term &
long‐ term stays with amenities for daily use. This seems
similar to a common understanding of a cabin and of a unit.
The Template envisages a distinction, which ought to be
clarified. (Draft definition provided by HVC).
Refer proposed definition to TPC Advisory Committee.
4.1.3
‘skyline’ - draft definition.
GCC
Protection of skyline values includes protection of the face of
the hill not just features silhouetted against the sky. Either a
definition of hillface is needed or the definition of skyline needs
TPC Committee decision:
TPC Regional Scheme Committee has rejected
proposal to defined ‘skyline’, advising that the planning
39
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
4.1.3
‘streetscape’ - draft definition.
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
to be broadened to accommodate it. This terminology also
needs to extend to the Significant Landscapes Code.
English (dictionary) definition is sufficient. A definition
for ‘ridgeline’ has also been rejected.
Assume same for GGC suggestion for a definition of
‘hillface’
Planning scheme provisions dealing with these issues
will need to be reviewed in light of this.
HCC
Delete ‘verge’ from definition.
The planting may be in a median.
Agree.
Will require agreement to amendment by TPC
Advisory Committee.
TPC
On 6 September 2012, the Advisory Committee advised that
clause 5.5.1 was not intended to exempt maintenance and
repair of buildings that are listed in a heritage code from the
obligation to obtain a planning permit. This clause will need to
be amended when the Template is reviewed. In the meantime,
it is recommended that draft interim planning schemes include
the following revised clause 5.5.1:
5.5 Maintenance and Repair of Buildings
5.5.1 Maintenance and repair of buildings including repainting,
re-cladding and re-roofing whether using similar or different
materials provided this does not:
a) contravene a condition of an existing permit which
applies to a site; or
b) involve a place or precinct listed in a heritage code that
is part of this planning scheme.
Agree.
Although it is noted the Southern Region’s concern
with the original clause was the exemption for recladding and re-roofing of heritage buildings in different
materials.
The Southern Region would prefer the original
exemption to remain for heritage buildings, but with the
stipulation that re-cladding and re-roofing is exempt
provided in same materials.
5.0 General Exemptions
5.5.1
Heritage
40
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
5.0
Signs exemption
TPC
This clause provides that any signs listed as exempt from the
Signs Code are generally exempt from the scheme.
Cross referencing to other clauses is not allowed, refer to PAN
13.
Delete clause.
Not convinced should agree.
An exemption within a code means exempt from the
code. It does not mean generally exempt from the
whole scheme … ?
5.0
Community garden on a public
reserve.
HCC
Proposed (local) general exemption for a community garden on
a public reserve.
Agree.
Adopt HCC exemption as a regional common
provision.
1 metre vegetation clearance
CHC
Limited exemptions allowing for 1m of vegetation clearance are
“ridiculous”, should be a lot more.
Agree.
However the Regional Project has not power to
change the State Template.
Note that the Boundary Fences Act requires 2 metres
clearance either side of a boundary. The State
Template is subservient to legislation, and therefore is
legally over-ruled in practice in this particular matter.
Greater exemptions for rural
land.
CHC
Greater veg clearing exemptions for farmers needed.
Agree.
Planning schemes should generally only impact native
vegetation with high biodiversity values that the
Council has determined has significance to its
community.
That the vast majority of high biodiversity value native
vegetation is separately protected by Commonwealth
and State laws.
However the Regional Project has not power to
change the State Template.
Waterways buffer areas.
Inconsistency between the
Limited Exemptions in the
Regional
Project
The Region Model Scheme provisions (Wetlands and
Watercourses Code) match the widths of Water Quality
Protection Areas with the widths in the Forest Practices Code.
Proposed approach:
It is assumed that it is not likely that either the
Template or the STRLUS will be amended on this
6.0 Limited Exemptions
41
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
State Template and the Water
Quality Protection Areas in the
Regional Model as required by
the STRLUS.
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
This alignment is stipulated in the STRLUS (WR 1.3). This
means that there will be variable widths according to the size
of the waterway: e.g. 10, 20, 30 and 40 metres according to
the 'class' of the stream.
However, the State Planning Scheme Template appears to
assume that all watercourse buffers will be 30 metres wide
regardless of the size of the stream, by virtue of the wording of
the Limited Exemptions, many of which provide that: "xxxx kind
of development is exempt, except if within 30 metres of a
watercourse". The State Template thereby presumes that
within 30 metres of any watercourse the scheme will have
controls over development specific to the issue of being in
proximity to the watercourse.
To overcome this mismatch, either the State Template or the
STRLUS would have to be amended.
score in time for the draft schemes to be submitted to
the Minister.
Therefore, the inconsistency will have to stay for n
initial period of time when the schemes are
operational.
The practical effect of this is that certain kinds of
otherwise exempt development will not be so if within
30 metres of a watercourse. If the watercourse is one
of the smaller classes it will have only a 10 metre or 20
metre wide Watercourse Protection Area in which the
Waterways and Wetlands Code is activated.
Therefore, these developments will need to be subject
to development applications, but if outside the
Watercourse Protection Area there will be no specific
relevant provisions in the scheme to assess it by.
This is considered a relatively minor matter, and
something that ‘can be lived with’ until the Template or
the STRLUS can be amended.
6.1.7
Proposed regional addition.
Provision and minor upgrades”
of linear and minor utilities and
infrastructure
TPC
Mandatory
Inconsistent with Template - The “provision” and “minor
upgrades” of Linear and Minor Utilities and Infrastructure is
already provided for under sub clauses 6.2.2 and 6.2.4 of the
Template.
Delete clause.
Agree.
Delete clause.
6.1.7
Proposed regional addition.
Provision and minor upgrades”
of linear and minor utilities and
infrastructure
DIER
It would be good to include bus stops in section 6.1.7, unless
you think it is already covered by seating/shelter, but would be
good to add in to make it clear.
Not agree.
As per TPC comment above, 6.1.7 is to be deleted.
Assume bus stops covered by 6.2.2 and 6.2.4.
6.1.7
Proposed regional addition.
Provision and minor upgrades”
of linear and minor utilities and
GCC
This clause refers to the “construction, placement or demolition
… of minor infrastructure ….”.
Does the proposed regional exemption clause duplicate in
whole or in part those existing State level exemption clauses
Agree.
Refer TPC comment above.
42
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
infrastructure
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
relating to utilities and infrastructure, namely; General
Exemption cl. 5.4.1 “maintenance and repair …” and Limited
Exemption: cl. 6.2.2 “provision of the following utilities and
infrastructure”?
6.1.7
Proposed regional addition.
Provision and minor upgrades”
of linear and minor utilities and
infrastructure
HCC
Delete – this repeats 6.2.2 (b)
Agree.
Refer TPC comment above.
6.3.1
Vegetation planting, clearing
or modification
HCC
This section should be supplemented with a qualifying
provision to the effect that the use or development is in
accordance with the exemption provisions of a code.
Otherwise, it would be micro land use control (see comment on
6.3.2 (a) (ii) below, and in the case of (g) potentially counterproductive where planting is desirable to help prevent
erosion/sedimentation through an approved plan in the case of
area be covered by a Biodiversity Code [Planting of
undesirable species that might easily spread along a water
course and elsewhere course should be covered by Noxious
Weed provisions as matter of general law].
Explanation:
The Template mechanics may provide for this: Use or
development that is excluded from a limited exemption
would be exempt only if a code dealing with that
specific matter exempts it.
However, this needs further legal clarification: It is
understood that an exemption from a code is only an
exemption from that code, not an exemption from the
entire scheme.
6.3.2
Vegetation planting, clearing
or modification
HCC
Planting of vegetation on a heritage place or in a garden in a
heritage precinct should be exempt – need to check if exempt
in Heritage Code.
Agree.
Check if exempt in Heritage Code.
6.5.3
Irrigation pipes for agricultural
use.
HVC
Limiting this exemption to only agriculture use excludes its
application to other Resource development uses. The rationale
for this is not clear however it is considered that many other
forms of use within the resource development use class have
similar operational requirements for irrigation pipes and require
this limited exemption
Comment noted.
This is a state template provision.
Question to be put to TPC.
6.5.3
Irrigation pipes for agricultural
use.
TRG
(20/07/12)
It was suggested:
TPC Advisory Committee to comment.
•
The words ‘agricultural use’ should be replaced ‘resource
development’.
43
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Terminology.
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
(Note the Use Class definition of ‘resource development’ and
its example specific uses, in the Template, needs to be sorted
out.)
6.0
(Proposed new)
Outbuilding in the Rural Living
Zone, Rural Resource Zone
Significant Agriculture Zone
HVC
Proposed new 6.6.1 and 6.6.2 for Outbuilding in the Rural
Living Zone, Rural Resource Zone Significant Agriculture
Zone. (Proposed wording provided by HVC).
This limited exemption retains similar exemptions in HV
Council’s three current planning scheme (which are applicable
in all zones) as these have been proven over a long period of
time to be appropriate and have broad community acceptance.
It should be noted that ‘outbuilding’ is a term defined by the
State Template and only relates to a dwelling
Agree.
Include as regional optional at this stage.
The provision fills a gap between 6.1.5 and 6.5.
It is noted that the state template provides that a
‘dwelling’ includes any outbuilding normally forming
part of a dwelling.
6.0
(Proposed new)
Works incidental to dam
construction.
HVC
Works incidental to dam construction. (Proposed wording
provided by HVC).
The scope of a dam construction permit under the Water
Management Act 1999 is (for some unknown reason) limited to
the dam construction itself and not to associated access for
works outside of the dam footprint. This has proved
problematic particularly for additions to existing dams as the
required excavation is outside the dam footprint and therefore
subject to LUPAA approval but when viewed against the permit
under the Water Management Act 1999 can only be for trivial,
inconsequential matters.
Agree.
Include as regional optional at this stage.
Whilst the ACDC take the view that works incidental to
dam construction are not under its jurisdiction,
planning schemes should provide an exemption to:
Wind turbines. Provides for wind turbines under a certain size
limit in certain zones. (Proposed wording provided by HVC).
Refer to background paper for supporting information and
justification. The scope of exemptions should be taken as a
strong policy level expression of support for renewable energy
for its potential for local economic development.
Renewable energy is an issue best addressed at the State or
Region level and the proposed local provisions should only be
considered in lieu of.
Agree.
Consider incorporating these exemptions in 6.0
6.0
(Proposed new)
Renewable energy - wind.
HVC
44
•
Retain state policy position.
• Avoid unnecessary red tape.
(ACDC should be encouraged to accord with land use
planning practice and policy that works incidental are
works included.)
(See comment above under general comments)
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
6.0
(Proposed new)
Renewable energy – ground
mounted solar panels.
HVC
Ground mounted solar panels, under a certain size in certain
zones (Proposed wording provided by HVC).
Agree.
Include as regional optional at this stage.
6.0
(Proposed new)
Change of use from one
permitted use to another.
TRG
(20/07/12)
Should change of use from one “P” use to another require a
new permit in all cases?
Clause 8.4.2 of Template provides that a change of use from
one use to another, even within same use class, requires a
permit unless the planning scheme specially provides
otherwise.
It was agreed:
• Enlarge scope of exemptions (or No Permit
Required) so that a change of use from one “P” use
to another does not need a new permit, if:
o Use only (not development).
o No greater car parking requirements.
o No greater commercial vehicle requirements.
o Only in specific zones: Business / Commercial
Zones, Industrial Zones, Port and Marine
Zone, Rural Resource Zone.
• The exemption clause in HCC 2009 scheme,
(clause 5.17.2) provides a good model.
• The NW Model (clause 5.10.2) provides a similar
provision and some of it may be reasonable to
adopt.
(Refer comment below)
6.0
(Proposed new)
Change of use to permitted
uses in business and
commercial zones.
HVC
Provides for change of use to a permitted use provided no
external development, no increase in parking requirement, no
increase in external storage of goods or waste and operate
within parameters of any existing planning permit. (Proposed
wording provided by HVC).
This limited exemption is based on an expectation that a
change of use to any use that is permitted by the applicable
zone will have no potential to cause any issue provided that
sub‐ clauses (a) to (e) are met and any requirement for a
permit would represent officious regulation.
Agree.
(Also – refer comment above).
6.0
HVC
Consider if appropriate and specific exemptions could be
Agree.
45
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
(Proposed new)
Disabled access works, etc.
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
provided for works associated with essential health and safety
maintenance or for disable access subject to siting and scale,
unless associated with a change of use that requires a permit
or to a heritage listed building.
There have been some instances where permits have been
required to retrofit access ramps or fire exits to buildings that
have established commercial use. These forms of works are
required to comply with non‐ planning legislation and often
arise due to re‐ investment in existing buildings. In certain
zones, a planning application for such works would offer no
benefit but would hinder their development.
(Proposed wording provided by HVC).
7.0 Planning Scheme Operation
8.0 Assessment of an Application for Use or Development
8.2
Use Class definitions
HCC
Educational and occasional care
Template Use Class definition refers to ‘day respite facility’.
Template definition in 4.1 refers to ‘day respite centre’.
Noted:
TPC needs to amend State Template.
8.2
Use Class definitions
HCC
Resource development
Template Use Class definition refers to ‘crop production.
Template definition in 4.1 refers to ‘crop raising.
Noted:
TPC needs to amend State Template.
8.2
Use Class definitions
HVC
Resource development and resource processing
Appropriate location for ‘marine farming shore facility’.
The regional model has ‘marine farming shore facility’ under
Agree.
Amend as suggested.
46
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
the resource processing use class. Suggest it should be under
the resource development use class.
9.0 Special Provisions
9.1.1
Changes to an Existing Nonconforming Use
HCC
This clause is defective – It is not possible to change to a nonconforming use. A non-conforming use, according to the Act
definition, is one that lawfully existed before the coming into
operation of the Scheme but is now prohibited.
Noted.
Pass comment on to TPC.
Alignment with PD4 – Single
Dwellings in the General
Residential Zone.
TPC
Since the draft Regional Model was submitted to the TPC, PD4
has been updated. The Regional Model will need to be
updated accordingly.
Agree.
Inclusion of multiple dwelling
provisions.
TPC
The draft Model omitted provisions for multiple dwellings in the
General Residential Zones on the basis that the TPC is
developing statewide provisions. The Model should now
include provisions for multiple dwellings. These should be
based on the (recently) released draft State provisions.
Agree.
The Model should include the draft State provisions as
they appear in the relevant Planning Directive’s public
exhibition version.
These provisions will therefore appear in the draft
Model released for (informal) public comment as part
of the region’s draft planning schemes in April 2013.
It is noted that they will be subsequently modified when
the PD is finalised. Timing is unknown, but this is very
likely to be after the informal public comment period for
10.0 General Residential Zone
47
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
the region’s schemes.
At this point in time (late 2012) it would appear likely
the final version of the State’s multiple dwelling
provisions will be ready in time for insertion into the
Southern schemes formally submitted to the Minister
Allocation of General
Residential Zone to
unserviced residential areas.
TPC
The General Residential Zone is intended to apply to areas
that are, or can be, serviced. The zoning of areas that are
unserviced to General Residential Zone will need to be
reconsidered, which is currently facilitated in the Regional
Model Planning Scheme through the proposed alteration to
10.1.1 zone purpose statement (mandatory – Template
provision) and addition of 10.1.4 zone purpose statement
(optional regional model provision). 10.7.1 Subdivision in
Unserviced Areas and 10.7.6 Subdivision – Service
Connections set out the development standards for
considering subdivision in unserviced areas in the General
Residential Zone.
Village or Low Density Residential Zoning may be suitable
alternative zones to apply to unserviced areas. Particular
Purpose Zone 1 – Urban/Settlement Growth Zone may also be
appropriate.
Agree.
Some existing unserviced residential areas may fall
into the category of being ‘able to be serviced’,
depending on plans of the water and sewer authority.
These need to be better understood.
The use of Village zone is not considered appropriate,
as it would facilitate commercial development in areas
intended to be just residential.
The use of Low Density Residential zone my be
appropriate in some areas, however it would require
location-specific modification of setback and other
standards to be appropriate for the existing suburban
size blocks in these areas.
Allocation of General
Residential Zone to
unserviced residential areas.
SC
General Residential zone provisions referencing to unserviced
land is supported as this provides a clear opportunity for
significant areas such as the Southern Beaches in the Sorell
municipality to respond to environmental and public health
issues by encouraging infrastructure provision by Southern
Water. As those areas in the Southern Beaches are clearly of
an existing density applicable to a General Residential zone
this zone classification is considered the most appropriate.
TPC Advisory Committee has directed that the General
Residential Zone can only apply to areas that are
serviced or can be serviced.
Some existing unserviced residential areas may fall
into the category of being ‘able to be serviced’,
depending on plans of the water and sewer authority.
These need to be better understood with respect to
Southern Beaches.
Further consideration is therefore necessary.
Allocation of General
Residential Zone to
unserviced residential areas.
TC
(Via TRG
meeting
Tasman raised the issue that all its settlements current have
the equivalent of General Residential Zone. However, all are
unserviced, yet all have (in theory) possibility of subdividing
It was agreed the best approach is for Tasman to:
48
•
Zone most current residential zoned areas as
Low Density Zone, but with setbacks set as for
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
20/07/12)
Comment or Suggestion
under the current scheme. The lots, in many cases, are
suburban in size and the proposed setback provisions of the
Low Density Residential Zone would cause too many
unnecessary discretionary applications. Can Tasman provide
for subdivision within unserviced General Residential Zone
areas?
It was noted that the State Template envisages that all Gen.
Res. land will be serviced or ‘capable of being serviced’, and
that the proposed regional application of the zone to
unserviced areas on the proviso of no subdivision is already
‘pushing the envelope’ provided by the TPC.
Regional Project Response
the Gen. Residential Zone.
•
Zone the core area of its main town, Nubeena, as
General Residential - on the basis that a
Southern Water waste water treatment plant
exists and although not widely connected to
residences, this is envisaged in the future.
10.2
Use Table
GCC
There is a need to consider, in the identification of use status,
the principle of higher order social infrastructure being located
in higher order zones.
There is a need to qualify use classes such as “Community
meeting and entertainment” e.g. cinema, civic centre, museum
and library and “Educational and occasional care”: e.g.
secondary school and tertiary institution so that higher order
social infrastructure is delivered in higher order zones not
lower order zones. Otherwise, the intent of orderly provision of
infrastructure is not met.
Agree.
Revise Use Table with this in mind.
10.2
Use Table
HCC
Food services & general retail and hire
(Regional qualifications replaced with local qualifications).
Noted.
10.2
Use Table
HCC
Residential
In the draft a ‘home based business’ is ‘no permit required’.
Suggest ‘home based business’ be discretionary where it
involves more than 1 non-resident worker/employee or 1
commercial vehicle or is in excess of 30m2 floor area.
Also applies to Inner Residential and Low Density Residential
Agree.
10.2
Use Table
HVC
Qualification: ‘only if not displacing a residential use’ for
some non-residential uses:
The qualification ‘only if not displacing a residential use’ should
Agree.
Make optional.
49
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
be regional optional, as it may not be appropriate in many
General Residential Zone areas.
10.2
Use Table
CCC
Qualification: ‘only if not displacing a residential use’ for
some non-residential uses:
Delete.
Agree, in part:
Make optional.
10.2
Use Table
GCC
Utilities
A number of zones have Utilities noted as “no permit required”
if minor utilities. However, the second reference to Utilities in
the “discretionary” section of the use table is qualified as
“Except if permitted”. Should be “Except if no permit required”.
Also applies to 10.2, 16.2, 18.2, 19.2.
Agree.
Apply corrections.
10.2
Use Table
HVC
Visitor accommodation
Suggest delete the qualification ‘only if bed and breakfast’ and
replace with a use standard (draft wording provided by HVC).
Considered too restrictive. Use standards can provide an
appropriate assessment framework for the Visitor
Accommodation use class without arbitrary use qualification.
This use qualification may be modified at the regional level.
Also applies to Rural Living Zone, Environmental Living Zone
Agree.
Control scale and impact of visitor accommodation
through a standard rather than a qualification.
(See below also)
10.2
Use Table
CCC
Visitor accommodation
Need to include local qualification:
“… or a motel fronting Cambridge Road, Clarence Street or
East Derwent Highway, South Arm Highway or Tasman
Highway”.
Acknowledge.
Need to structure provision to allow this type of
qualification to be added.
10.3.1
Amenity impacts of non-res
use.
CCC
Suggest reword objective:
“To ensure that a use does not have unreasonable adverse
impacts on the amenity of the area”
Agree.
Reword.
(But still refer to residential amenity).
10.3.1 A1 (a)
Operating hours
HCC
Suggest provide for weekend opening as many of the uses
provide a local service, as per Inner Res Zone.
Not agree.
In General residential zone, weekend opening hours of
a proposed commercial use ought to be subject to
50
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
public notification.
Retain the draft Acceptable Solution operating hours
for draft schemes subject to (informal) public
consultation. (Review in light of feedback).
10.3.1 A1 (a)
Operating hours
GCC
Operating hours standards should be expressed as
consistently as far as the particular zone context allows.
Consider whether to make the actual hours specified a regional
optional provision to enable flexibility to adapt to local
circumstances within the framework of commonly worded text.
Also applies to other residential zones.
Not agree, at present.
Retain standard Acceptable Solution operating hours
for draft schemes subject to (informal) public
consultation. Review in light of feedback.
See above.
10.3.1 A1 (c)
Vehicle movements
HCC
The AS restricts the non-residential use to no more than 20
vehicle movements per day.
This could be difficult to determine without a traffic study, which
may be an onerous requirement for some uses.
Not agree.
The intention is to provide an AS that provides a clear
limit. In this case, if a traffic study is deemed
necessary, the AS fails the test as an AS must not
require a study or expert opinion (which are both
arguable).
However, the Regional Project is willing to consider
any suggested re-wording for an AS to limit traffic for
non-residential use in residential areas.
10.3.1 A1 (d)
Vehicle movements
HCC
The AS limits storage to that not visible from a road.
Question: Any road anywhere?
Answer: Yes.
10.3.1 A2 & P2
Managing impacts of nonresidential use.
TPC
10.3.1 A2: Noise, dust, odour or lighting emissions are not
generated.
10.3.1 P2: Noise, dust, odour or lighting emissions must not
unreasonably impact on residential amenity.
These development standards do not provide adequate
guidance on assessment of use.
Redraft to provide quantifiable and measurable criteria, and
also consider the existing legislative requirements under the
Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994.
Also review Inner Residential, Low Density Residential and
Not agree re: A2, generally.
If a non-residential use does not generate emissions, it
should be provided a permitted pathway through this
standard.
However, rewording is appropriate to clarify the intent,
which is not to generate emissions greater than what
would normally be expected by an average residential
use.
51
Agree re: P2
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Marine and Port Zones.
Take up TPC suggestion to draw from Northern model
scheme for this provision.
10.3.1 A2
Managing impacts of nonresidential use.
GCC
Acceptable solution: “Noise, dust, odour or lighting emissions
are not generated”.
All uses generate noise, dust, odour and lighting. The effect of
this acceptable solution would be to render non-residential
uses discretionary as compliance is impossible.
Also applies to 10.3.1 A2, 11.3.1 A2, 12.3.1 A2, 13.3.1 A2,
14.3.1 A2, 15.3.1 A2, 16.3.1 A2
Explanation:
If a non-residential use does not generate emissions, it
should be provided a permitted pathway through this
standard.
However, rewording is appropriate to clarify the intent,
which is not to generate emissions greater than what
would normally be expected by an average residential
use.
10.3.1 A2
Local shop
HCC
Local shop - the Regional Model provided a definition of local
shop that was based on use only, and did not specify a
maximum floor area. The AS in this Zone limited the floor area
to a locally specified limit.
HCC proposed to set the limit at 250m2.
TPC have defined ‘local shop’ to not exceed a floor
area of 200 m2.
10.3.1
Proposed new and rewritten
provisions
CCC
Proposed deletion of the ‘noise, dust, odour or lighting
emissions’ AS and PC, and replace with separate AS/PCs for:
Agree – in part
Review – potentially add.
But retain the general impacts provision to provide
clear head power to condition permits regarding a
range of potential impacts.
•
external lighting
•
amplified loud speakers
•
deliveries or garbage removal
10.3.1 A3
Local shop
TPC
Local shop - the Regional Model provided a definition of local
shop that was based on use only, and did not specify a
maximum floor area. The AS in this Zone limited the floor area
to a locally specified limit.
The TPC have now set a statewide definition for ‘local shop’ in
which a maximum floor area of 200m2 is set.
Also applies to 11.3.1 A3
Resolution:
Southern Model Scheme will have to align with the
state-mandated text.
(However, in correspondence of 16 November 2012
the TPC Committee flagged it would be willing to
consider a larger maximum floor area if proposed by
the region.)
10.3.1 A4 and P4
(Proposed new)
Visitor accommodation
HVC
Suggested new use standard dealing with visitor
accommodation, coupled with the deletion of the qualification
for visitor accommodation in the Use Table.
Agree.
Control scale and impact of visitor accommodation
through a standard rather than a qualification.
52
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Also applies to Rural Living Zone, Environmental Living Zone,
10.4.7
(Proposed new)
Ancillary dwellings.
HVC
Suggested new development standard dealing with ancillary
dwellings.
Intent of the clause is that the entire ancillary apartment use is
within 20m of the single dwelling. It is not a wall to wall or
similar setback.
Also applies to Low Density Residential, Rural Living &
Environmental Living – with larger max separation distances,
Village Zone
It is unclear with the parameters placed on ancillary
dwellings by the State through the template definition
are intended by the State to be the only parameters.
Refer to TPC for comment.
It is noted that the template definition refers to
‘appurtenant’, which is subjective, whilst the HVC
proposed use standard provides objective statements
in the AS and an absolute limit in the PC.
10.6.1 (c) & (d)
Conflict between Performance
Criterions
TPC
10.6.1 (c) & (d)
(c) have a maximum building height of 9.5 metres and must be
sufficient to prevent unreasonable adverse impacts on
residential amenity on adjoining lots by …
(d) building height must be consistent with any Desired Future
Character Statements provided for the area or the streetscape
Do not provide for clear criteria for building height
requirements.
Is it 9.5m or can it be something greater or lesser depending
on local area objectives, amenity impacts?
Suggest redraft.
Agree.
Redraft to make absolutely clear that the number is the
absolute maximum.
Also - that building height may be less than the number
for particular areas if specified by Desired Future
Character Statement.
10.6.1 A1 –
Cross-references to other
clauses.
TPC
10.6.1 A1 – Cross-references to AS in clauses 10.4.1, 10.4.2
and 10.4.3 relating to single dwellings.
For Discussion
Need to fully populate AS and review PC to ensure they are
relevant/related.
Not agree.
Need for clauses to be ‘self contained’ is acknowledge.
However, repeating all of 10.4.1, 10.4.2 and 10.4.3 in
this clause seems a needles repeat of words and
diagrams.
However, CMS will fix this concern.
10.6.1
Design, siting and appearance
for buildings other than single
or multiple dwellings
TPC
This standard attempts to control a range of elements in one
place, contrary to p. 21 of the TPC’s Planning Advisory Note.
The standards should be separated so that the objectives,
acceptable solutions and performance criteria are dealt with
element by element.
Agree.
However, State appears intent on separating out and
providing provisions explicitly for single and multiple
dwellings.
Planning schemes will therefore have to include
53
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
This is partly a response to the State’s intended use of
standards for single and multiple dwellings only – leaving
planning authorities to needlessly duplicate or triplicate
essentially the same standards in the same zone. There needs
to be exploration of this issue with the TPC to ensure common
sense can prevail.
‘provisions for development other than single and
multiple dwellings’. If cross-referencing is not allowed,
(refer above) the schemes will simply have to be much
duplication.
10.6.2
Landscaping
(Proposed new)
CCC
Suggest a new standard dealing with landscaping. (Draft words
provided by CCC; (no AS)).
No agreed as regional provision.
Potentially CCC to retain as local provision.
10.7.1
Objective (c)
Average net density for a
suburb
HCC
Question: Does this mean subdivisions are expected to make
up for the ‘performance of the existing developed part of the
suburb?
Answer:
No. It is intended that this objective will be met by
following the subdivision standards for each proposed
subdivision, and that it will not be necessary for a
developer (or Council) to calculate the density of an
existing suburb and determine what this number
means for any particular subdivision proposal.
Also applies to 10.7.2 objective (c).
Also applies to Inner Residential Zone 11.6.1
10.7.1
Objective (d)
Passive surveillance
HCC
This is fine for totally new building estate /sub-divisions but
need to avoid different treatment between re-subdivision and
multiple dwelling development of an existing large lot. [Part of
whole issue of accommodating CPTED efficiently in terms of
process]
Noted:
CPTED principles are difficult to formulate into
development standards.
Transfer to Section 9 ?
10.7.2 A1
CCC
Suggest new wordings:
“(a)
Is for the purpose of providing public services and
utilities; or
(b)
Is to provide for public open space; or
(c)
The size of each lot must comply with one of the
following:
…. (as existing)…”
Not agree.
No lead-in sentence.
However, reword exception sentence as suggested
elsewhere.
10.7.2 P1 (a)
Average net density for a
suburb
HCC
Question: Does this mean subdivisions are expected to make
up for the ‘performance of the existing developed part of the
suburb?
Answer:
No. Density calculations need to be confined to the
land of a subdivision proposal.
54
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
However, agree provision needs to be re-written to
clarify.
Intention is to encourage greater density close to
public transport corridors, etc.
10.7.2 A2 (iv)
10.7.2 P2 (b)
Linking all relevant scheme
provisions to the one ‘Building
Area’
TPC
Clause 7.5 provides an overarching requirement for
compliance with all applicable standards, therefore
unnecessary. Unnecessary to cross-reference. Delete:
10.7.2 A2 (iv) not subject to any codes in this planning
scheme;
10.7.2 P2 (b) able to comply with any applicable standards in
codes in this planning scheme;
This relates to the Building Area concept within the
Template.
The intent of the Model Scheme was that a Building
Area designated on a new title is free of all risks (not
just bushfire) and free of all significant values that need
to be conserved. Cross referencing would appear to be
necessary for this to work.
However, in discussion with TPC model scheme
committee members, agreed that the scheme does not
need to link, and that it will be up to subdividers to see
the sense in ensuring each lots Building Area has been
‘ticked off’ for all relevant issues dealt with by the
planning scheme.
10.7.2
Subdivision Lot Size
GCC
A2 (v) refers to minimum building area no more than 12
degrees in slope (that is 1 in 4.7 slope or 21%) however table
10.1 refers to a minimum lot size of 450m2 unless slope is
greater than 20% ( 1 in 5) in which case the minimum lot size
increases to 750m2.
Comment: The reference to 12 degrees is inconsistent and
does not correspond to values used in Table 10.1. If the
intention of the references is for lot slope of 1 in 5 or 20%
(equivalent to 11.3 degrees ) then these units of measurement
should be used.
Agree.
Standardise terminology.
Use: “1 in x”.
10.7.3 P1 (a)(iii)
“… within proximity to …”
HCC
“… within proximity to …”
This phrase is very open to different interpretations within and
between planning authorities.
Agree:
Redraft to provide clearer direction.
However, specifying a set distance is not favoured.
10.7.3 P1 (d)
Sentence syntax
HCC
Replace ‘maximises’ with ‘optimises’.
To avoid risk of direct conflict with other elements.
Agree.
55
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Also applies to 10.7.4 P1 (c) & (d) and similar words in other
zones’ subdivision provisions.
10.7.5 P1
Proposed new subclause
CCC
Suggest new subclause:
(i)
provides for a legible movement network;
Agree
10.7.6 P1 & P3
Subdivision - Service
Connections – Unserviced
Land
TPC
10.7.6 P1 & P3 Subdivision - Service Connections – objective:
“To ensure that the subdivision of land provides an appropriate
level of services.” (e.g. onsite stormwater management and
alternate water supply).
P1 & P3 provide for development where full infrastructure
services are not available which is inconsistent with the
Template Zone Purpose (see comments above).
Suggest redraft to ensure land provides for full infrastructure
services – development standards must be measurable.
Agree.
All subdivision of land zoned General Residential must
be fully serviced, as per State Template zone purpose
statement.
10.7.6
Subdivision Service
Connections
GCC
10.7.6 A3 requires that each lot must be connected to a
reticulated stormwater system.
Comment: P3 should be NO PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
(same as for A2 reticulated sewerage system) i.e. each lot
MUST be connected.
Agree.
This accords with the position of the TPC: General
Residential Zone land must be fully serviced (or
capable of being fully serviced.)
Table 10.1
Lot size requirements
GCC
Footnotes are shown below the table. These need to be
included in the table otherwise they are of no legal effect.
Also applies to Village Zone Table 16.1
Agree.
Amend.
Table 10.1
Slope / minimum lot size
CCC
In ‘minimum lot size’ column, add to text as follows:
Unless the slope on any part of the lot is greater than 20%*
Agree.
Table 10.1
Lot size requirements
CCC
In the ‘maximum lot size’ column, add reference to heritage
places:
Not including balance lots or lots containing a heritage listed
property
Not agree.
The Heritage Code will address this issue.
Tables 10.1 and 10.2
Subdivision tables
HCC
“Lots adjoining or opposite public open space …”
Suggest nominate a distance as for lots within 150m walking
distance business zone or shop?
Agree.
Amend.
Ensure this is coordinated with HCC comment re:
56
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
10.7.3 P1 (a)(iii) above.
Tables 10.1 and 10.2
Subdivision tables
GCC
As a matter of construction, the tables for frontage and lot size
should appear as close as possible to the standards to which
they relate, not be placed at the end of a number of other
standards.
Also applies to Village Zone Table 16.1 and 16.2
Not agree - in part
Format is for all tables to appear at the end of each
Zone or Code.
Exception is for small tables able to be accommodated
within an Acceptable Solution or Performance Criteria
set out.
However, CMS should now enable this flexibility!!
Regional Zone Purpose
Statement 11.1.3 referencing
increase in density.
TPC
There are inherent conflicts with seeking higher densities
(11.1.3 – mandatory zone purpose statement), while
“respecting the existing variation and pattern in lot sizes”
(11.1.1 – Template), particularly when the density target could
result in substantial change.
It is suggested that zone purpose statement 11.1.3 be deleted,
and allow this objective to be pursued through Local Area
Objectives and Desired Future Character Statements so that it
is applied in specific locations where the issue is relevant (e.g.
special area plan applies or brownfield site), or it be redrafted
to provide for “medium to high density” or change focus from
density to ‘vision’ i.e. to provide for substantial increase in new
dwellings and optimisation of physical and social services.
Not agreed.
Achievement of Regional Strategy objectives would be
inhibited if the Inner Residential zone is inherently a
no-change zone.
Within the Southern Region heritage precinct overlays
will be used over Inner Residential Zone areas where
no change to the character of an area is desired.
Elsewhere, the Zone should herald significant
densification into the future.
Change to the State purpose statement – if needed –
can be considered through the interim scheme
assessment process.
11.2 Use Table
Expand number of residential
uses allowable in the Inner
Residential zone.
TPC
Residential
Use Table for the Inner Residential Zone provides a limited
range of permissible residential uses, which is not consistent
with the Regional Land Use Strategy [policy SI2.1] which
states ‘provide flexibility in planning schemes for a variety of
housing types in residential areas’.
Partially agree – at present:
It is noted that ‘single dwelling’ is currently D, with
other uses (e.g. multiple dwellings) P.
The intention is to dissuade use of land in this zone for
single dwellings.
11.2 Use Table
HCC
Residential
A single dwelling should be permitted if it meets the acceptable
Agree – at present:
The intention is to dissuade use of land in this zone for
11.0 Inner Residential Zone
57
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
solutions in 11.4.1
single dwellings.
However, it is recognised that if this is retained in the
Use Table a workable use standard will need to be
developed.
11.2 Use Table
HCC
Residential
In the draft a ‘home based business’ is ‘no permit required’.
Suggest ‘home based business’ be discretionary where it
involves more than 1 non-resident worker/employee or 1
commercial vehicle or is in excess of 30m2 floor area.
TO BE RESOLVED
11.2 Use Table
HCC
Educational and occasional care
Suggest these be discretionary as they have potential impacts
on residential amenity
Agree.
11.2 Use Table
GCC
Emergency services.
Ought to be discretionary in this zone.
Agree.
11.4.1 A1 & P1
Cross-referencing to other
clauses.
TPC
11.4.1 A1 & P1 must comply or satisfy the requirements under
Clause 10.4.
AS and PC must be self-contained.
Query whether the application of the Planning Directive No.4
standards for General Residential Zone is appropriate given
density targets for Inner Residential Zone?
Redraft requirements if density targets cannot be achieved with
PD4 requirements.
Agree in part.
Review to ensure Gen Res Zone setbacks, etc. are
appropriate.
However if they are appropriate, it would be more
efficient (word and diagram-wise) to simply cross
reference Gen Res Provisions.
11.4.1 P1 (a) & P2 (a)
“precluding a second dwelling”
HCC
“ precluding a second dwelling …”
Assumes the site is big enough for 2 or more dwellings
Explanation:
P1 and P2 refer to sites of more than 500 m2 and 700
m2 respectively.
The intention of this standard is to provide an AS for a
single dwelling on smaller sites, but on larger sites a
single dwelling must be sited so as to leave room for a
second dwelling.
58
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Agree that the provisions need to be re-written. The
lead-in sentence for the AS is different to the PC, and
this is not good drafting.
Inclusion of multiple dwelling
provisions.
TPC
The relevant multiple dwelling provisions in the Inner
Residential and Village Zones require populating as local-level
provisions. The latest version of the Draft Planning Directive for
Residential Development may assist with this task
Agree.
The State’s draft multiple dwelling provisions for the
General Residential Zone will be used as a basis for
developing multiple dwelling provisions for the Inner
Residential Zone.
OR NOT? INNER RES ZONE NEEDS HIGHER
DENSITY – SEE IF THE MODIFICATION CAN BE
DONE TO DO THIS
11.6.1 A3
Vehicular access points
HCC
Draft has no AS for vehicular access points.
Suggest below is an appropriate AS:
Lots must be provided with only one vehicular access to a road
that is in accordance with section 3 – “Access Facilities to Offstreet Parking Areas and Queuing Areas” of AS/NZS
2890.1:2004 Parking Facilities Part 1: Off-street car parking
Agree.
(Ensure lead-in sentence is the same for As and PC,
however).
Table 11.1
Lot size requirements
TPC
Lot size requirement conditions reliant on ‘consolidated
approval’ approach.
Difficult to achieve use and development outcomes identified in
the conditions to approve a new lot. No guarantees in place to
ensure nominated use and development will be undertaken on
newly created lot.
Not agree.
Ultimately, if the planning authority considers the lot is
only suitable for the stated use/development, it can
apply a condition of approval specifying that the title be
subject to a covenant-in-gross that specifies the
use/development.
The provision, as proposed, will enable greater
flexibility for design of proposed developments.
Domestic animal breeding, boarding , training
Delete
Agree.
Make regional optional.
12.0 Low Density Residential Zone
12.2 Use Table
CCC
59
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
12.2
Use Table
HCC
Residential – multiple dwellings.
Multiple dwellings should be allowed at the same density as
subdivision. If you can have 1000m2 lots why not have
multiple dwellings at a density of 1 per 1000m2 of site area
Additional standards will be required for density, parking, front
fences and open space.
Not agree, generally.
If can have one dwelling per 1000m2, allow for
1000m2 lots.
However, Regional Project does not rule out possibility
of local circumstances providing justification for local
variation to this provision.
12.2
Use Table
CCC
Residential
Delete ‘ancillary dwelling’ from ‘no permit required’
Agree.
Make ‘ancillary dwelling’ permitted to as conditions can
be applied.
12.2
Use Table
CCC
Visitor accommodation
Change qualification to ‘only if for bed and breakfast’
No agree.
See comments on ‘visitor accommodation’ elsewhere.
12.3
Use Standards
CCC
Suggest change title to:
Amenity Impacts of Discretionary Non-Residential Use
Agree.
But change to ‘discretionary use’
12.4.1 P1 (a)
Setback re: residential
amenity
HCC
“ … setback re: residential amenity …”
What aspects of ‘residential amenity’ in particular? This is an
element mainly concerned with streetscape.
Agree
Amend to be more specific.
12.4.1 P1 (e)
Passive surveillance
HCC
‘ … passive surveillance … “
The AS doesn’t guarantee this.
Agree
Redraft AS to include, or delete (e) from PC.
12.4.1 P1 (f)
retaining existing veg
CCC
Suggest add as follows:
(f)
minimise loss of vegetation within the front setback,
where such vegetation makes an important contribution to the
streetscape qualities.
Agree
Add
12.4.2 A1 & P1
Setback from side and rear
boundaries
HVC
Suggest provide for a different minimum setback on
‘subminimum lots’.
There is considered to be considerable benefit in a two‐ tiered
setback standard given variations in the size of lots within and
between individual spatial allocations of the zone. In other
words the setback standard for a 700m2 in Garden Island
Sands (for instance) should be must less than a 2000m2 lot
Agree.
Provide for local setting of setbacks.
Some LDR land is genuine large lot res land.
Other LDR land is suburban-sized lots, (that is
unserviced).
60
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
otherwise the acceptable solution becomes impractical & futile.
12.4.5 P1 (a)
Outbuildings
CCC
Suggest delete (a)
Not agree.
12.4.6
Site coverage
TPC
12.4.6 : Site Coverage: To ensure that the amount of the site
covered by buildings: …(b) assists with the management of
stormwater.
Necessary to have a corresponding AS or PC
Insert additional PC to address stormwater management.
Agree.
Delete.
All stormwater issues to be dealt with in Infrastructure
Code.
12.4.6 P1 (b) (iii)
Visual impacts
HVC
P1 (b) (iii) visual impacts when viewed from adjoining lots
Consideration needs to be given as to what is implied by the
term visual impacts. It is a broad statement. Presumably it is to
require some element of good design and avoid large, blank
walls but this is not an issue that directly relates to site cover
and the impacts of a large site cover on residential amenity as
the clauses proposes. Perhaps sub‐ clause (iii) should be
deleted and a new clause (c) provided that “avoid large, blank
walls through articulation of facades, floor levels, roof planes or
building materials”.
Consider
12.4.7
(Proposed new)
Ancillary dwellings.
HVC
Suggested new development standard dealing with ancillary
dwellings.
Intent of the clause is that the ancillary apartment use is within
20m of the single dwelling. It is not a wall to wall or similar
setback.
It is unclear with the parameters placed on ancillary
dwellings by the State through the template definition
are intended by the State to be the only parameters.
Refer to TPC for comment.
It is noted that the template definition refers to
‘appurtenant’, which is subjective, whilst the HVC
proposed use standard provides objective statements
in the AS and an absolute limit in the PC.
12.5.1
Subdivision
CCC
Suggest separate subdivision for public services, public open
space, etc, into a separate A1/P1
(Comment applies to other large lot res zones)
Not agree.
12.5.1 A1
CCC
Suggest amending A1 to state that the area of an internal lot
Agree in principle,
61
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Subdivision
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
not to include area of access strip.
Need to consider wording / structure of provision.
12.5.1 A1
Subdivision
CCC
Suggest amending A1 to eliminate the idea of a maximum lot
size.
Not agree,
Intent of the AS maximum is to encourage efficient use
of land in this zone. If very large lots proposed, should
be considered under discretionary (i.e. PC) provisions.
12.5.1 P1
Subdivision
CCC
Delete PC altogether, and state “no performance criteria’.
(Comment applies to other large lot res zones)
This runs in hand with the comment above.
Not agree.
12.5.1 A2 (a)
Building Area - cross
referencing
TPC
Clause 7.5 provides an overarching requirement for
compliance with all applicable standards, therefore
unnecessary. Unnecessary to cross-reference.
Delete:
12.5.1 A2 (a)
(iv) not subject to any codes in this planning scheme other than
the Bushfire Prone Areas Code.
(v) capable of accommodating residential use and
development complying with the acceptable solutions within
the Bushfire Prone Areas Code if that code applies;
This relates to the Building Area concept within the
Template.
The intent of the Model Scheme was that a Building
Area designated on a new title is free of all risks (not
just bushfire) and free of all significant values that need
to be conserved. Cross referencing would appear to be
necessary for this to work.
However, in discussion with TPC model scheme
committee members, agreed that the scheme does not
need to link, and that it will be up to subdividers to see
the sense in ensuring each lots Building Area has been
‘ticked off’ for all relevant issues dealt with by the
planning scheme.
12.5.1 A2 (vi),
13.5.1 A2 (iv)
14.5.1 A2 (a)(v)
Subdivision – separation from
RRZ and SAZ
TPC
12.5.1 A2 (vi), 13.5.1 A2 (iv) and 14.5.1 A2 (a)(v) (subdivision
standards for Low Density Residential, Rural Living and
Environmental Living Zones) state the design of each lot must
be ‘… no less than 100m from the Rural Resource Zone, and
200m from the Significant Agriculture Zone’.
Development standard should refer to setbacks from a building
for a sensitive use on adjoining land. It may be interpreted that
subdivision in these Zones cannot relate to land/existing lots
adjoining a Rural Resource Zone or Significant Agriculture
Zone.
Redraft to state 200m to be consistent with the Regional Land
Use Strategy] or delete this development standard and rely on
Not agree.
Clarification:
The standard refers to the Building Areas created on
new lots. These must be 100 m from Rural Resource
zone and 200 m from Significant Agriculture Zone to
be accorded a permitted pathway through this
standard.
STRLUS calls for separation of 200 metres between
sensitive uses and regionally significant agricultural
land, hence the 200 m setback from the SA Zone.
Elsewhere in agricultural areas (i.e. the Rural
Resource Zone), 100 metres is suggested as being
62
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
other development standards which capture buildings and
works for sensitive uses and prescribe an appropriate
setback/buffer.
sufficient.
12.5.1
Subdivision Lot Size
GCC
12.5.1 A1 refers to lots sizes between 1000m2 and 2500m2.
A2 refers minimum building area no more than 12 degrees in
slope.
Comment: The reference to 12 degrees is inconsistent.
(Need clarification)
12.5.1 P3 (b)
Passive surveillance
HCC
‘ … passive surveillance … “
The AS doesn’t guarantee this.
Explanation:
It is true that a standard frontage width does not
guarantee passive surveillance, however it make it
likely.
A small frontage width makes it likely that passive
surveillance will not be afforded, hence the PC subclause.
12.5.1
Absence of recognition and
protection of environmental
values.
KC
There is no requirement in the performance criteria that the
subdivision design avoids and minimises impacts on
environmental values and yet this zone includes areas with
significant environmental values but which are not appropriate
to zone environmental living due to the existing zoning and
settlement patterns
Not agree.
Environmental values within this zone that the planning
authority wishes to recognise and protect should be
dealt with in the biodiversity code.
The planning scheme should endeavour to deal with
issues only once.
12.5.1 P4
Internal lots.
CCC
Suggest add new sub-clause:
“(a)
the lot is an infill lot in a subdivision approved prior to
Scheme date.”
Not agree.
This is unnecessary as existing (a) achieves this:
“(a)
the lot gains access from a road existing prior
to the application for subdivision;”
12.5.5
Subdivision Service
Connections
GCC
12.5.5 A3 requires that each lot must be connected to a
reticulated stormwater system.
Comment: P3 should be NO PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
(same as for A2 reticulated sewerage system) i.e. each lot
MUST be connected.
Not agree.
One purpose of the Low Density Zone is to apply to
areas that would otherwise by General Residential, but
where there are infrastructure constraints that limit
development. Therefore, it must be possible to allow
development where services are not connected. Note,
63
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
however, that as a Performance Criteria, such an
application can be refused if the issue is not
satisfactorily addressed.
13.0 Rural Living Zone
13.2
Use Table
GCC
“Manufacturing and processing” has a qualification that
states: “Only if craft and cottage industry/artists studio”.
However, this kind of activity arguably falls within the use class
“Community meeting and entertainment” which is defined to
include an “art and craft centre”.
Applies to 13.2, 14.2, 16.2
Not agree.
Intention is to refer to a ‘cottage industry’ use, run by a
private hands, not a place where the products are
displayed.
13.2
Use Table
GCC
Consider making “General retail and hire” discretionary in the
zone with a qualification that allows for a roadside stall. This is
necessary because such stalls often occur outside the property
boundary in the road reserve outside of the planning unit - and
are arguably not able to be treated as ancillary.
Agree.
13.2
Use Table
HVC
Manufacturing and processing.
Suggest change qualification:
Not agree.
‘Art and craft centre’ is in the ‘community meeting and
entertainment’ Use Class.
The qualification is attempting to refer to a private
commercial workshop.
Only if craft and cottage industry/artists studio art and craft
centre.
Art and craft centre is the term that is defined by the Planning
Scheme Template for Tasmania
13.2
Use Table
GCC
Residential: Why can’t a “Single dwelling” have “no permit
required” status in this zone? (Currently shown as “Permitted”.)
Agree.
Make ‘single dwelling’ no permit required.
13.2
Use Table
CCC
Residential: a “Single dwelling” should be “no permit
required” status in this zone? (Currently shown as “Permitted”.)
Agree.
Make ‘single dwelling’ no permit required.
13.2
Use Table
HVC
Residential (only if single dwelling or ancillary dwelling)
should be ‘no permit required’.
To retain the current, long established permitted as of right
Agree.
Make ‘single dwelling’ no permit required.
Retain ancillary dwelling as ‘permitted’.
64
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
status for a single dwelling in the equivalent zone of Council’s
current planning schemes.
13.2
Use Table
GCC
Residential: Why is a “home-based business” not “no permit
required” in this zone?
Agree.
Make No Permit Required.
It is NPR is General Residential Zone. Should be no
different in the Rural Living Zone.
13.2
Use Table
CCC
Residential: Suggest “home-based business” should be ‘no
permit required’.
Agree.
Make No Permit Required.
It is NPR is General Residential Zone. Should be no
different in the Rural Living Zone.
13.2
Use Table
TRG
(20/07/12)
Residential (non-habitable extensions for existing dwellings)
(Single dwellings are to be NPR)
13.2
Use Table
HVC
Resource Processing
Suggest delete the qualification (only if winery)
There are a range of boutique resource processing activities
that could be appropriate. There are current examples of small
scale cheese making and even an abattoir in existing rural
residential areas. These activities should be assessed for their
impact and not their specific input/output. Further, winery is a
very discreet land use as defined by a Template and excludes
similar activities such as producing and sales of cider, whisky
etc
Not agree – in part.
The Rural Living Zone is predominantly a residential
zone.
Not considered appropriate to flag that all resource
processing uses might be appropriate.
Suggest individual Councils add additional uses to the
qualification, as they deem appropriate for particular
areas.
Make qualification regional optional.
13.2
Use Table
CHC
Resource Processing is D, but only if ‘winery’.
Shouldn’t just single out “winery”, other uses in that category
should be considered.
Not clear which other uses in the Resource Processing
Use Class should be allowable in the Rural Living
Zone, across the region.
Recommend CHC list its own local-level uses in its
planning scheme.
Make qualification regional optional.
13.3.1
Use Standards – opening
CHC
Use Standards – opening hours:
No operating hours provided for weekends?
Explanation:
The Acceptable Solution (i.e. permitted) is to open only
65
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
hours:
Regional Project Response
on weekdays.
A business can seek to open on weekends, but this
would be subject to a discretionary application. The
applicant would need to specify the opening hours they
are seeking approval for, which would then be
advertised for comment and subject to council
consideration.
13.3.1 P1
Use Standards
CCC
Suggested additions to this clause
(Wording provided by CCC)
Agree
Use suggested wording, or similar.
13.3.1 A2 and P2
Use Standards
CCC
Suggested additions to this clauses
(Wording provided by CCC)
Agree
Use suggested wording, or similar.
13.4.1 A1 (b)
Setback from frontage
CCC
Suggest delete “as determined by a building area if provided
on the title”
Agree – in part.
At time of subdivision, building areas should be located
with consideration to the standard setbacks.
In larger-lot zones such as Rural Living, building areas
should not need to encroach on standard setbacks.
Therefore, delete this provision (b) from this zone and
all large-lot zones – from Low Density Residential
upwards.
In smaller-lot zones such as Inner Residential or
General Residential, it may be desirable for building
areas to encroach on standard setbacks in order to
achieve higher density. E.G., where lots may have
been designed for terrace-style housing and it is
appropriate to have
13.4.2 P1
Setback from side and rear
HVC
Suggest providing for differing setbacks depending on size of
lot.
Agree – in part.
13.4.6 P2
Appearance, etc.
CCC
Suggest add a new sub-clause:
“(b)
the building must be consistent with the domestic scale
of dwellings on the site or in close visual proximity to the
dwelling.”
Agree.
Use suggested words or similar.
66
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
13.4.6 A3
Appearance, etc.
HCC
The AS is not specific enough for an acceptable solution,
suggest:
Colours used for all exterior building surfaces are to be the
dark toned colours specified in AS2700: 2011 Colour
Standards for General Purposes.
Also applies to Environmental Living Zone.
Agree.
13.4.6 P3
Appearance, etc.
HCC
The model has no PC. Suggest:
Reflection from surfaces including glass and unpainted metal
surfaces must avoid adverse impacts on the visual amenity of
neighbours and detracting from the contribution the site makes
to the landscape, views and vistas.
Also applies to Environmental Living Zone.
Agree.
(However, ensure lead-in sentence is the same for AS
as PC).
13.4.6 A4
Appearance, etc.
HCC
The AS is not specific enough for an acceptable solution,
suggest:
The maximum depth of any filling or excavation except for
building support purposes is 1m from natural ground level.
Also applies to Environmental Living Zone.
Agree.
Include in wording below.
13.4.6 A4
Appearance, etc.
CCC
Suggest rewords as follows:
“Works must be limited to the area required for the construction
of building footprints and vehicular access”
Agree.
Include in wording above.
13.4.6 P4
Appearance, etc.
HCC
The model has no PC. Suggest:
Excavation or filling must be kept to a minimum so that the
development does not:
(a)
detract from the visual amenity of the area; or
(b)
impact upon the privacy for adjoining properties; or
(c)
affect land stability on the lot or adjoining areas.
Also applies to Environmental Living Zone.
Agree
(However, ensure lead-in sentence is the same for AS
as PC).
13.4.6 A4
Cut and fill
HVC
Suggest alternative wording.
The intent of this acceptable solution is supported but may best
Agree.
As an AS, the provision needs to be written objectively.
67
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
occur by quantifying these outcomes. For instance, the
acceptable depth could specify a maximum depth of cut and fill
(perhaps 1m) possibly tied to an area (perhaps 150m2 of a site
can have cut and fill to a depth of more than 0.5m). In terms of
native vegetation clearance, an acceptable solution could
specify that perhaps 250m2 of native vegetation (trees, shrubs
and understorey) can be cleared within the zone for
construction and bushfire management (noting this issue will
also likely be addressed by a biodiversity code.
Re-write.
13.4.6 A5
(Proposed new)
Driveway access construction.
HVC
Driveway access construction between road and car park for a
residential use, (draft wording provided by HVC).
This provision is similar to that existing in the Port Cygnet
Planning Scheme 1988 which provides an important yet
practical regulation of driveway design to mitigate undue
environmental harm or excessive visual impact. Considered
important to pursue no permit required status for a single
dwelling within the zone.
A zone provision – or a code matter ?
13.4.7
(Proposed new)
Ancillary dwellings.
HVC
Suggested new development standard dealing with ancillary
dwellings.
Intent of the clause is that the entire ancillary apartment use is
within 30m of the single dwelling. It is not a wall to wall or
similar setback.
It is unclear with the parameters placed on ancillary
dwellings by the State through the template definition
are intended by the State to be the only parameters.
Refer to TPC for comment.
It is noted that the template definition refers to
‘appurtenant’, which is subjective, whilst the HVC
proposed use standard provides objective statements
in the AS and an absolute limit in the PC.
13.5.1
Subdivision Lot Size
GCC
13.5.1 A2 refers minimum building area no more than 12
degrees in slope.
Comment: The reference to 12 degrees is inconsistent.
Agree.
Make consistent.
13.5.1
Absence of recognition and
protection of environmental
values.
KC
There is no requirement in the performance criteria that the
subdivision design avoids and minimises impacts on
environmental values and yet this zone includes areas with
significant environmental values but which are not appropriate
to zone environmental living due to the existing zoning and
Not agree.
Environmental values within this zone that the planning
authority wishes to recognise and protect should be
dealt with in the biodiversity code.
68
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
settlement patterns
The planning scheme should endeavour to deal with
issues only once.
13.5.5 P2
Subdivision service
connections
CCC
Suggest change as follows:
If a reticulated system is unavailable, each lot must be capable
of accommodating an on-site wastewater treatment system
adequate for the future use and development of the land.
Agree.
13.5.5 A3
Subdivision service
connections
HCC
AS stating that each lot must be connected to a stormwater
system.
Not practical in many of locations with this zoning as there
won’t be a system.
Not agree, in part.
However, an AS must be clear and inarguable. Is it
certain that all lots in this zone would be capable for
accommodating stormwater on-site? If not, then it is
difficult to see how an AS could be drafted.
TPC Committee have advised that no subdivision is to
be provided a permitted pathway.
Therefore, retain the provision as is.
14.0 Environmental Living Zone
14.2
Use Table
HCC
Some provision should be made for agricultural use at the
hobby farm level in this zone particularly where land is already
cleared.
Agree – in part
If land is already cleared it would be being used for
agricultural use already.
If significant amounts of cleared areas exists in the
locality, then the more appropriate zone would be
Rural Living.
Nevertheless, some provision should be made for
existing cleared areas to be used for agriculture.
14.2
Use Table
TPC
Community meeting & entertainment use class is prohibited,
which appears to be not consistent with the Zone Purpose To
provide for limited community, tourism and recreational uses
that do not impact on natural values or residential amenity.
Uncertainty as to which uses ‘limited community’ relates to,
Agree
Review.
69
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
given Community meeting & entertainment use class is
prohibited
There are other uses that could be considered ‘community’ in
broad sense such as emergency services, i.e. fire station.
Review.
14.2
Use Table
CCC
Educational and occasional care: Only if for home-based
child care in accordance with a licence under the Child Care
Act 2001
Agree.
Suggest add the above to ‘discretionary’.
14.2
Use Table
GCC
Residential: “Single dwelling” should be “discretionary” in the
zone. This would be consistent with Council’s current
provisions for the landscape and conservation zone.
Not agree.
The State purpose is to provide for residential
development.
Note, however, that any development requiring
clearance of native vegetation would not comply with
14.4.7 A1, and would need to satisfy the associated
Performance Criteria.
In practice, therefore, the majority of dwelling
applications in this zone will likely be discretionary.
14.2
Use Table
HVC
Addition to ‘discretionary’ of:
Noted.
Local provisions.
14.2
Use Table
KC
•
community meeting & entertainment,
•
domestic animal breeding, boarding or training,
•
general retail & hire (subject to various qualifications)
•
resource development (only if bee keeping)
•
sports and recreation
•
tourism operation (only if reliant on bushland setting)
Visitor accommodation:
Use classes too narrow
Eg Visitor accommodation should include options for
70
Re: bee keeping: consider making ‘no permit required’.
Agree.
Add as discretionary.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
campgrounds, cabins etc
14.3.1
Amenity Impacts of NonResidential Use
TPC
Amenity Impacts of Non-Residential Use (opening hour
restrictions and amenity controls). This only applies to artist
studio, b&b, and fire station.
Suggest deletion of standard.
Further consideration:
Await final Use Table and reconsider.
14.4.1 P1 (d)
Setbacks from frontage
KC
Only refers to minimising impacts on native vegetation not
environmental values more broadly.
As the zone purpose is broader than native vegetation values,
this standard should be amended to refer to environmental
values.
Not agree.
Purpose of front setback is to protect streetscape /
roadscape.
Provisions elsewhere in the zone, and also the
biodiversity code, will protect environmental values
generally.
14.4.3 P1
Setback from Environmental
Management Zone
HCC
The draft PC provides for an absolute limit of 50 metres
setback from the Environmental Management Zone.
Suggest remove absolute figure, there are bound to be cases
where there are already buildings within 50m, may prevent an
existing house from being extended.
Agree.
Provide special consideration to extension of existing
dwellings.
14.4.7 A1 (a)
Appearance and Siting of
Buildings and Works
KC
Only refers to being clear of native vegetation rather than
environmental values. As the zone purpose is broader than
native vegetation values, this standard should be amended to
refer to environmental values
Not agree.
This provision is concerned with ‘appearance’.
Provisions elsewhere in the zone, and also the
biodiversity code, will protect environmental values
generally.
14.4.7 P1 (a)
Appearance and Siting of
Buildings and Works
KC
Requires further qualification to ensure that if there are no
areas clear of native vegetation, then the buildings and works
are located in the place of least impact.
Amend P1 (a) to read: ‘located within the site of least
environmental impact
Agree.
Amend.
14.4.7 P3
Appearance and Siting of
Buildings and Works
CCC
Currently ‘no performance criteria’
Suggest add:
“Reflection from surfaces including glass and unpainted metal
surfaces must avoid adverse impacts on the visual amenity of
Agree.
Use suggested words or similar.
71
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
neighbours and detracting from the contribution the site makes
to the landscape, views and vistas.”
14.4.7 A4
Cut and fill
HVC
Suggested alternative wording.
The intent of this acceptable solution is supported but may best
occur by quantifying these outcomes. For instance, the
acceptable depth could specify a maximum depth of cut and fill
(perhaps 1m) possibly tied to an area (perhaps 150m2 of a site
can have cut and fill to a depth of more than 0.5m). In terms of
native vegetation clearance, an acceptable solution could
specify that perhaps 250m2 of native vegetation (trees, shrubs
and understorey) can be cleared within the zone for
construction and bushfire management (noting this issue will
also likely be addressed by a biodiversity code.
Agree.
As an AS, the provision needs to be written objectively.
Re-write.
14.4.7 A4
Cut and fill
BC
A4 is partially dealt with by A1 (so a minor tweak of A1 could
allow the deletion of A4)
Not agree.
Refer above alternative suggestion for a more
definitive set of words.
14.4.7 A5
(Proposed new)
Boundary fencing
HVC
Suggested addition of a provision regulating boundary fencing.
(Draft words proposed by HVC)
Designed to address front fencing primarily.
Noted.
Local provision.
Not considered necessary for a regional provision.
14.4.7 A6
(Proposed new)
Driveway access construction.
HVC
Driveway access construction between road and car park for a
residential use, (draft wording provided by HVC).
This provision is similar to that existing in the Port Cygnet
Planning Scheme 1988 which provides an important yet
practical regulation of driveway design to mitigate undue
environmental harm or excessive visual impact. Considered
important to pursue no permit required status for a single
dwelling within the zone.
A zone provision – or a code matter ?
14.4.8
(Proposed new)
Ancillary dwellings.
HVC
Suggested new development standard dealing with ancillary
dwellings.
Intent of the clause is that the entire ancillary apartment use is
within 30m of the single dwelling. It is not a wall to wall or
It is unclear with the parameters placed on ancillary
dwellings by the State through the template definition
are intended by the State to be the only parameters.
Refer to TPC for comment.
72
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
similar setback.
It is noted that the template definition refers to
‘appurtenant’, which is subjective, whilst the HVC
proposed use standard provides objective statements
in the AS and an absolute limit in the PC.
14.5.1 A1
Subdivision in the ELZ
KC
Subdivision in the ELZ should only be permitted where it is for
a special area plan or the exceptions as stated. All other
subdivision in this zone should be discretionary irrespective of
whether or not it meets the minimum lot size.
Acceptable solution means that no conservation benefit
required if the minimum lot size satisfied, even if this would
result in substantial environmental impacts from establishing
access, bushfire clearing, waste water and building envelope.
Net conservation benefit should be required for any subdivision
in the ELS except where there is already an approved Special
Area Plan or public open space etc.
Do not consider net conservation benefit is really a lot size
issue and could be better addressed through adding an
additional criteria in subdivision General Design.
Include an additional criteria 14.5.2 (see below).
Explanation.
Subdivision in the zone is only permitted if in
accordance with a Specific Area Plan.
Clause 14.5.1 A1 deals only with minimum lot size.
Other clauses in the zone and the biodiversity code
can deal with the ‘net conservation benefit’ issue.
14.5.1 P1
Subdivision in the ELZ
KC
P1(c) refers to permanent conservation of the majority of the
land, which could only result in 51% even if the values extend
over 90%
Amend to require the conservation of the natural values
Agree.
Delete the phrase ‘of the majority of the land’.
14.5.1 A2 (a) (iii) and (iv).
Cross referencing – Building
Area
TPC
Clause 7.5 provides an overarching requirement for
compliance with all applicable standards, therefore
unnecessary. Unnecessary to cross-reference.
Delete:
14.5.1 A2 (a) (iii) and (iv).
This relates to the Building Area concept within the
Template.
The intent of the Model Scheme was that a Building
Area designated on a new title is free of all risks (not
just bushfire) and free of all significant values that need
to be conserved. Cross referencing would appear to be
necessary for this to work.
However, in discussion with TPC model scheme
committee members, agreed that the scheme does not
73
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
need to link, and that it will be up to subdividers to see
the sense in ensuring each lots Building Area has been
‘ticked off’ for all relevant issues dealt with by the
planning scheme.
14.5.1 A2
HCC
Correction to sentence syntax.
Agree.
Amend provision.
(Check similar in other zones.)
14.5.1 A2
KC
A2(ii) only refers to being clear of native vegetation rather than
environmental values.
As the zone purpose is broader than native vegetation values,
this standard should be amended to refer to environmental
values and hazards.
Agree – in part.
Other natural values are dealt with by a range of
values-based codes,(biodiversity, wetlands &
watercourses, geodiversity, etc).
Hazards are deal with by a range of hazard codes.
But see KC comment 14.5.2, below.
14.5.1 P2
KC
P2 enables subdivision involving clearance of threatened
vegetation communities or habitat for threatened species.
Subdivision in the ELS should only occur where it is capable of
containing a building envelope clear of all hazards and
environmental values, including native vegetation broadly.
Include standard P2(g) requiring building area be located clear
of all hazards and environmental values.
Agree – in part.
The provision does allow for clearance of native
vegetation, (however it does require ‘least
environmental impact’).
The zone envisages subdivision for residential
purposes. If a planning authority does not envisage an
area should be further subdivided it should set a
minimum lot size that prevents this (or simply state –
‘no further subdivision’).
If a planning authority does not envisage any
clearance at all on existing titles it should use the
Environmental Management Zone.
In addition to all of the above, it is noted that a
planning scheme cannot override protection of
environmental values provided by state or
commonwealth legislation.)
Nevertheless, agree that this provision require building
areas be located clear of all hazards and values.
74
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
14.5.1 P4
HCC
Correction to sentence syntax.
Agree.
Amend provision.
(Check similar in other zones.)
14.5.2
Addition criteria suggested.
KC
Net conservation benefit should be required for any subdivision
in the ELS except where there is already an approved Special
Area Plan or public open space etc.
Include an additional criteria 14.5.2.
A3 – Subdivision design must comply with an applicable
Specific Area Plan in which general design has been
determined except if for public open space, a riparian reserve,
public services or utilities in which case the size is as
appropriate for the purpose and site characteristics
P3 – Subdivision design must demonstrate that it will achieve a
net conservation benefit through arrangements for the
permanent conservation of natural values outside the required
building area and bushfire protection zones
Agree – generally.
14.5.2 should include an additional criteria along the
lines suggested.
Need to consider biodiversity code and the need to
ensure no duplication of provisions in drafting the
wording.
14.5.2
KC
There is a performance criteria along the lines that subdivision
design should maximise future subdivision potential (not sure
of exact wording as don’t currently have Model Scheme in front
of me). Such a standard is inappropriate for the EL zone – this
is not a zone to promote maximum subdivision but provide for
it where appropriate. This is particularly the case in
Kingborough where large parcels of land are proposed to be
zoned EL and only limited subdivision is desirable.
Note, if the standards remain as currently drafted, there is the
potential for substantial subdivision in the ELZ across
Kingborough involving removal of significant areas of native
vegetation with no conservation outcome (excepting what may
be required via a Code). This should not be the outcome
subdivision in this Zone. If the provisions remain as they are,
zone maps will require review and much of what we have
currently zoned EL would be better zoned RR in order to
protect the environmental values (which would be quite
Not agree.
The purpose of this provision is to ensure land is not
wasted through inefficient subdivision design.
The issue raised in the comment goes to minimum lot
size.
Planning authorities should ensure the minimum lot
size for various areas zone Environmental Living
accords with its vision for these areas.
75
The planning scheme will contain a biodiversity code
that should be the primary scheme mechanism for
recognising and protecting natural values.
The Rural Resource Zone is not a zone intended for
the preservation of natural values. Natural values
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
perverse). The subdivision standards in the ELZ in the
previous version of the Model Scheme (2011) were more
appropriate and logical than in this version. I suggest these
should be revisited.
within this zone that the planning authority has
determined to recognise and protect should be done
so through the biodiversity code.
14.5.3
BC
Happy for no AS, given that it only applies to new roads and
subdivisions requiring new roads should be discretionary
anyway.
Noted.
TPC Advisory Committee have advised that the crossreference to a Specific Area Plan (upon which the AS
is based) is not necessary, as the SAP would over-rule
the Zone. Therefore, this AS will be deleted.
Missing requirement for
demonstration how
environmental values will be
managed.
KC
There is no requirement that the application demonstrates how
the environmental values on the site will be managed – this is
a requirement of our current Scheme that is quite important to
ensure environmental values are not compromised by enabling
residential development of a site (even where the development
itself does not require clearing, a residential use introduces
threats such as weeds, domestic animals etc and developing
these sites should come with the responsibility that they are
managed appropriately to balance the residential use with the
environmental values).
Under the current Kingborough Scheme all residential
development in the EMZ is discretionary. While it is desirable
to have clear acceptable solutions where possible, it is difficult
to know how to draft an acceptable solution in relation to
demonstrating how environmental values will be managed.
Include performance criteria requiring all residential
development in ELS to demonstrate that the environmental
values will be managed to protect flora and fauna habitats,
riparian areas, any environmental values identified as part of a
site analysis, and identify measures to be used to mitigate
adverse environmental impacts
Agree – in part.
As this refers to un-going use, such provisions should
be included in the Use Standards.
However need to ensure that the scheme provisions
do not duplicate each other.
For example, riparian values are intended to be dealt
within in a wetlands and watercourses code, so zones
provisions will not need to duplicate these.
More broadly, many natural values will be dealt with in
a biodiversity code.
76
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
15.0 Urban Mixed Use Zone
15.1.4
Purpose
TPC
Mixed Urban Use Zone 15.1.4: To ensure that commercial
uses are consistent with the activity centre hierarchy
Zone purpose is ambiguous, need to articulate what the zone
needs to achieve from the regional land use strategy.
It is noted that the Use Table is very similar to that within the
General Business Zone.
Agree.
Further consideration necessary.
15.1.5
Purpose
TPC
Zone Purpose 15.1.5: To ensure development is accessible by
public transport, walking and cycling.
How is this implemented through the standards?
Clarification:
Implemented through spatial allocation of zone.
Note that provision for cycling facilities is included in
the Parking and Access Code.
15.2
Use Table
HCC
Various local amendments to Use Table
Noted.
15.2
Use Table
HCC
Residential – draft states this is ‘no permit required’
Suggest this be ‘permitted’ so conditions can be applied to
minimise impacts
No agree.
It is understood the Template definition of ‘home based
business’ has been set so as to provide a state-wide
limit on acceptable business activity in residential
areas.
15.2
Use Table
TPC
Transport depot and distribution.
This has the qualification: Only if for the purposes of accessing
public transport
Ambiguous phrasing – meaning unclear. Redraft.
Agree.
15.3.1 A2
Noise, dust, odour or lighting
emissions
HCC
Noise, dust, odour or lighting emissions are not generated.
Suggest add:
… beyond the boundaries of the site.
Agree
15.3.1 P2
Noise, dust, odour or lighting
emissions
HCC
Suggest amend to:
Noise, dust, odour or lighting emissions generated beyond the
boundaries of the site must not unreasonably impact on
residential amenity.
Agree
77
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
15.4
Developments standards for
buildings and works
HCC
General comment – regional variability:
It would be preferable for all of these standards to be local
provisions given the variety of areas that different Councils are
going to apply the Urban Mixed Use Zone
Acknowledged:
A significant degree of local variation is likely to be
justified for development standards for this zone.
15.4.2
Objective
Streetscape
HCC
Suggest rewrite objective to:
To ensure that building design and the location of car parking
contributes positively to the streetscape and the amenity and
safety of the public.
Agree.
15.4.2 A1
Streetscape
HCC
No acceptable solution.
Comment – this does not follow the principle of having a
permitted pathway for permitted use.
Explanation:
It is not possible to develop a meaningful AS for a
concept such as ‘streetscape’.
It is agreed that a permitted use should have a
permitted pathway through the use standards.
However, it does not follow that there should be a
permitted pathway through development standards.
The Template goes to great lengths to separate the
concept of ‘use’ from the concept of ‘development’ and
there is no logical link between a designation in the
Use Table and the provisions of Development
Standards.
Nevertheless, the TPC Committee has directed that a
permitted pathway must be provided through both use
and development standards. An AS will therefore be
developed, (but it is unlikely to be useful in practice).
15.4.2
Streetscape
HCC
Proposed (local) additional standards pertaining to:
Noted.
Potentially adopt as regional provisions.
15.4.3 A1
Passive surveillance
HCC
•
car parking location
•
fence height and transparency.
No acceptable solution.
Comment – this does not follow the principle of having a
permitted pathway for permitted use.
78
Explanation:
It is not possible to develop a meaningful AS for a
concept such as ‘streetscape’.
It is agreed that a permitted use should have a
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
permitted pathway through the use standards.
However, it does not follow that there should be a
permitted pathway through development standards.
The Template goes to great lengths to separate the
concept of ‘use’ from the concept of ‘development’ and
there is no logical link between a designation in the
Use Table and the provisions of Development
Standards.
Nevertheless, the TPC Committee has directed that a
permitted pathway must be provided through both use
and development standards. An AS will therefore be
developed, (but it is unlikely to be useful in practice).
Alternatively, this issue might be address through a
general consideration in Section 9.
15.4.4 A1
Residential use
HCC
No acceptable solution.
Comment – this does not follow the principle of having a
permitted pathway for permitted use.
Explanation:
It is not possible to develop a meaningful AS for a
concept such as ‘streetscape’.
It is agreed that a permitted use should have a
permitted pathway through the use standards.
However, it does not follow that there should be a
permitted pathway through development standards.
The Template goes to great lengths to separate the
concept of ‘use’ from the concept of ‘development’ and
there is no logical link between a designation in the
Use Table and the provisions of Development
Standards.
Nevertheless, the TPC Committee has directed that a
permitted pathway must be provided through both use
and development standards. An AS will therefore be
developed, (but it is unlikely to be useful in practice).
Alternatively, this issue might be address through a
general consideration in Section 9.
15.4.4 A1
HCC
Proposed (local) additional standards pertaining to:
Noted.
79
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Residential use
Comment or Suggestion
•
windows of habitable rooms
•
internal noise levels from traffic noise
•
outdoor living space
Regional Project Response
Potentially adopt as regional provisions.
15.5
Dev. stds for buildings and
works adjoining a residential
zone.
HCC
This should apply to all residential use. In Hobart we are trying
to encourage retention of residential use in this Zone and
prevent the development of retail strips.
Therefore, suggest replace the word ‘zone’ with ‘use’.
Not agree.
If this is implemented, a change of use to residential
would result in a change of development standards
affecting the property next door, even though the zone
has not changed. This is not considered warranted on
a region-wide scale.
Therefore: retain the regional provision.
Suggest that Hobart adopt a separate local-level
provision to achieve its ends.
15.6.1
Subdivision
TPC
15.6.1 – Objective: To provide for lots with appropriate area
and dimensions to accommodate development consistent with
the Zone Purpose.
Delete “Zone Purpose” and insert description.
Agree.
Inclusion of multiple dwelling
provisions.
TPC
The relevant multiple dwelling provisions in the Inner
Residential and Village Zones require populating as local-level
provisions. The latest version of the Draft Planning Directive for
Residential Development may assist with this task
Agree.
The State’s draft multiple dwelling provisions for the
General Residential Zone will be used as a basis for
developing multiple dwelling provisions for the Village
Zone.
16.1.4
Purpose Statement Use of
phrase ‘small shopping
TPC
It is suggested that the term “small shopping centre” be
replaced with “Rural Services Centre” or “Minor Centre” to
provide a range of goods and services to meeting the
Disagree.
Changing as suggested would mean “Rural Services
Centre” and “Minor Centre” would need definitions
16.0 Village Zone
80
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
precinct’
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
communities daily and weekly needs.
within the scheme. Whilst the Regional Strategy
provides such definitions, it is not considered desirable
to be so specific. 16.1.4 is considered best left using a
plain English generic term.
16.1.4
Purpose Statement Use of
phrase ‘small shopping
precinct’
TPC
Zone purpose statements for the Village Zone must accord
with the activity hierarchy outlined in the Regional Land Use
Strategy.
Disagree.
Changing as suggested would mean “Rural Services
Centre” and “Minor Centre” would need definitions
within the scheme. Whilst the Regional Strategy
provides such definitions, it is not considered desirable
to be so specific. 16.1.4 is considered best left using a
plain English generic term.
16.2
Use Table
GCC
Why can’t “Residential” - single dwelling, ancillary dwelling or
home-based business” be “no permit required” in this Zone
rather than “discretionary”.
Agree – in part.
Make Permitted.
The Village Zone is a mixed use zone and it may not
always be appropriate for a single dwelling to be
located on any lot within it. The ability to apply
conditions may be necessary to provide buffering to
protect against impacts from a use, such as a
commercial business, next door.
16.2
Use Table
HVC
Community meeting and entertainment
Move this Use Class from ‘discretionary’ to ‘permitted’
Community meeting & entertainment is considered to be an
entirely appropriate use within all areas proposed to be zoned
Village.
Noted.
Local provision.
16.2
Use Table
HVC
Various local amendments.
Noted.
Local provisions.
16.2
Use Table
CCC
Various local amendments.
Noted.
Local provisions.
Note that (State) Purpose of Village Zone needs be
reflected in Use Table, as well as the regional activity
centre network. A range of commercial uses should be
81
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
allowable.
16.3.1 A1
Use standards
AS limitation on vehicle
movements.
CCC
Suggest delete (c) limiting to 20 vehicle movements per day
under AS.
Not agree – part.
Retain a limitation.
But increase limit as this is a multi-use zone.
16.3.1 P2
Use standards
noise, dust, etc
CCC
Suggest new words:
“Noise, dust, odour or lighting emissions must not
unreasonably impact on residential amenity.
In particular, The emission of dust or other particles, smell or
fumes must not unreasonably effect the amenity and safety of
any other property, taking into account:
(a)
the hours of operation
(b)
the frequency of the emission
(c)
the nature of the emission and the degree of it’s impact
on other land, including whether such land is used or may be
used for residential purposes.
(d)
whether the emission contains any harmful substance”
Agree.
Use suggested words or similar.
16.3.1 P3/A3
Limitation of size of non res
use
CCC
Suggest delete this provision.
Not agree.
Retain limitation.
Allow for local determination of limit.
16.3.1
(Proposed new)
CCC
Proposed new AS/PC
AS = “No external amplified loud speakers or music.”
PC = “No performance Criteria”
Agree.
16.3.1 A3
Use standards
Non residential use
Maximum floor area (under
AS)
HVC
Suggest provide for a different maximum floor areas for
different non-residential use types.
A more tailored approach is necessary than provided in the
regional model, given the broad range of permitted uses (e.g.,
local shop & school) any figure could only be arbitrary and
either too small or large for each practical consideration.
Agree.
Local Councils to adopt one general limit, or specify
different limits for different uses.
82
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
16.4.1
Setback from frontage
HVC
Additions to the AS and the PC
Noted.
Local provisions.
16.4.1 P1
Setback from frontage
CCC
Propose add “where lot is less than 1000m2”
The intention is agreed.
On large lots there should be no ability to relax side
and rear setbacks, generally.
16.4.2 P1
Setback from side and rear
boundaries
CCC
Propose add “where lot is less than 1000m2”
The intention is agreed.
On large lots there should be no ability to relax side
and rear setbacks, generally.
16.4.3 A1
Building height
CCC
Add: “or 5m on an internal lot”
Recommend add as a local provision.
16.4.4
Outbuildings
CCC
Suggested delete whole provision relating to outbuildings.
Not agree.
Retain.
16.4.4
(Proposed new)
Frontage fences
HVC
Suggested provision to control front fences.
Front fence standard is identical to the General Residential
Zone. Typically, where the size applies is a transition from
General Residential Zone to Local Business / General
Business (in which fences are not encouraged by the zero front
building setback). In this context, consideration of front fences
is considered reasonable.
Agreed – in part.
Standard requires re-drafting.
16.4.7
(Proposed new)
Siting of mechanical plant and
miscellaneous equipment.
HVC
Suggested provision requiring heat pumps, hot water units,
and the like, to not visible from frontage.
Agreed.
Template limited exemption 6.1.2 exempts such things
if ‘to the side and rear of a building’.
Therefore, controls are needed for such things to the
front of a building.
16.4.8
(Proposed new)
Siting of buildings between
Huon Highway and High
HVC
Local provision
Noted.
Local provision.
83
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Water Mark
16.4.9
(Proposed new)
Ancillary dwellings.
HVC
Suggested new development standard dealing with ancillary
dwellings.
Intent of the clause is that the entire ancillary apartment use is
within 20m of the single dwelling. It is not a wall to wall or
similar setback.
It is unclear with the parameters placed on ancillary
dwellings by the State through the template definition
are intended by the State to be the only parameters.
Refer to TPC for comment.
It is noted that the template definition refers to
‘appurtenant’, which is subjective, whilst the HVC
proposed use standard provides objective statements
in the AS and an absolute limit in the PC.
16.6
Subdivision
HVC
General comment:
The regional subdivision provisions for the Village Zone are
likely to change as they are perhaps too similar to those of the
General Residential Zone. It is likely that the provisions will be
streamlined partly because large scale subdivision involving
new roads is unlikely within the areas proposed for the Village
Zone. A minimum lot size of 600m2 – 800m2 may be
appropriate for the Village Zone
Noted.
Allow for some tailoring of subdivision provisions at
local level.
16.6
Subdivision
Regional
Project
TRG
(20/07/12)
Should the Village Zone subdivision provisions be simplified to
be more similar to the Local Business Zone provisions than
those of the General Residential Zone?
It was agreed:
• The proposed Village Zone subdivision provisions
should be simplified somewhat.
• Not appropriate to specify the density targets
applicable in suburban areas, (15 dwellings per
hectare) but replace this with less specific
objectives such as ‘to make efficient use of
infrastructure’, etc.
16.6.2
Subdivision – lot size, building
area, frontage
CCC
Objective: Suggest reword (a) to:
(a)
Lots sizes appropriate to the character of the locality
and the physical constraints of the land a mix of lot size to
enable a variety of dwelling and household types;
?
16.6.2 A1
Subdivision – lot size, building
CCC
Suggest rewording:
Consider.
84
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
area, frontage
16.6. various clauses
Subdivision – lot size, building
area, frontage
CCC
Suggest rewording to various clauses.
In part, to simplify (along the lines of Regional Project TRG
comment above.)
Consider.
17.2
Use Table
HVC
Community meeting and entertainment.
Include qualification ‘only if library or public hall’.
Uses within this use class, such as Cinema, may be
inconsistent with the purpose of the zone and should not be
permitted.
Noted.
Local variation.
However, the point is a well made. The Use Class
appears to be internally conflicted.
‘Cinema’ and ‘function centre’ are private enterprise
businesses, and not similar to community facilities.
TPC should consider splitting the Use Class.
Refer to TPC for consideration.
17.2
Use Table
CCC
Suggest add crematoria and cemeteries to ‘discretionary’.
Agree
Add
17.2
Use Table
TPC
Use Table - Qualification: “only if existing” for custodial
facility and recycling and waste disposal
Allows for consideration of some existing uses that would
otherwise be prohibited.
Review whether necessary (i.e. existing use rights cover) and
confirm that will not undermine the zone purpose.
Not agree.
Intention is to prohibit new occurrences of these uses.
Essentially, a S43A application would be required to
set up new sites for these facilities on land in this zone.
17.2
Use Table
TPC
Make “resource development” “D” with qualification to allow
for community gardens.
Not agree.
It is suggested that ‘community garden’ does not
constitutes ‘resource development’.
Suggest ‘community garden’ is a form of public park,
and should be classified under ‘passive recreation’ Use
Class.
Regional general exemption has been created for
17.0 Community Purpose Zone
85
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
community gardens on public reserves.
17.2
Use Table
HVC
Residential
Addition of residential to ‘permitted’
Use standard also added to provide for community residence,
residential aged care, retirement village, etc. if located at
particular existing facilities (HVC lists them).
Agree – in part.
Include as regional optional provision providing for
community residence, residential aged care, retirement
village, etc.
However, the uses should be listed as qualifications in
the Use Table, (including the particular listed facilities
as optional regional).
17.2
Use Table
HVC
Addition of sports and recreation to ‘discretionary’.
Agree.
17.3
Use Standards
TPC
17.3 use standards relating to Tourist operation (visitor centre)
& Business and professional services (office for community
based organisation) are inconsistent with the Use Table.
Permitted uses within the Use Table are rendered discretionary
by the Use Standard.
Suggest review to alter status within Use Table, or redraft Use
Standard.
Agree.
Permitted use in the Use Table should be provided a
permitted pathway through the Use Standards.
(This principle, however, does not apply to
Development Standards. The Template makes a clear
distinction between ‘use’ and ‘development’).
17.3.1 A1
Use Standards – commercial
uses.
HCC
No acceptable solution.
This should only apply to discretionary commercial uses.
Agree.
Apply to ‘discretionary use’
17.4.1 A1
Use Standards adjoining a
residential zone
CCC
Suggest change definition of area potentially affected from
‘within 50 metres of a residential zone’ ’ to ‘adjoining a
residential zone’.
Not agree.
Should be some limit of extent of area subject to this
provision. (If very large lot).
Conversely, if a vey small lot (say only 20 metres wide)
the use of he next lot - which does not adjoin the
residential zone – might still have significant impact.
17.4.1 A1
Use Standards adjoining a
residential zone
CCC
Hours of operation: for AS, suggest make all days 7:00 am to
7:30 pm.
Not agree.
Keep to 10:00 pm for the April public consultation, then
review in light of feedback.
86
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
17.4.1 A1
Use Standards adjoining a
residential zone
From
CCC
Comment or Suggestion
Proposed new:
Regional Project Response
Agree.
•
External loud speakers / music.
•
Delivery hours
•
Outdoor storage
17.3.1 A2/P2
(Proposed new)
Commercial uses – parking,
loading, etc
HVC
Proposed new provision controlling parking, loading of
commercial vehicles.
Agree.
17.3.1 A3/P3
(Proposed new)
Commercial uses – outdoor
storage
HVC
Proposed new provision controlling visibility of storage areas.
Agree.
17.3.2
(Proposed new)
Residential use
HVC
Use standard added to provide for community residence,
residential aged care, retirement village, etc. if located at
particular existing facilities (HVC lists them).
Agree – in part.
Provide for regional optional provision providing for
community residence, residential aged care, retirement
village, etc.
However, the uses and locations should be listed as
qualifications in the Use Table.
17.4.3
Flood light emissions
Proposed new A2/P2
CCC
Additional clause proposed.
Agree
Adopt suggested words or similar.
17.5.1 A1
Building setback
HCC
Modification to provide for awnings over streets.
Agree – in part.
There should be clarity that awnings over streets in
activity centres are not subject to front setback rules.
17.5.1 P1
Building setback
CCC
Proposed additions to PC
Agree – in part.
Add suggested words, or similar.
17.5.1 P2
HCC
The PC provides for a locally determined absolute height limit.
Not agree.
87
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Building height
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Suggest remove (absolute) prohibition to allow some flexibility
on these large sites in Hobart
Drafting instructions are that PCs should not provide
open-ended discretion to relax ASs.
Suggest Hobart set a very high absolute height limit.
17.5.1 P2
Building height
CCC
The PC provides for a locally determined absolute height limit.
Suggest remove (absolute) prohibition
Not agree.
Drafting instructions are that PCs should not provide
open-ended discretion to relax ASs.
Suggest Hobart set a very high absolute height limit.
17.5.2 A1
Landscaping
HVC
Proposed new AS for landscaping (instead of ‘no acceptable
solution’)
A bare bones acceptable solution without which all
development would be discretionary. Regulating landscaping
through a development standard is a difficult task however
without this development standard there would be no head of
power to require detailed landscape plans as a planning permit
condition.
Agree.
Adopt the proposed provision (or modification thereof)
as regional common provision.
17.5.2 P1
Landscaping
CCC
Proposed additional new PCs for landscaping.
But change title to ‘Building design - streetscape
Agree
Adopt suggested wording or similar.
17.5.3
(Proposed new)
Fencing
HCC
Proposed (local) additional standard pertaining to fencing.
Noted.
Potentially adopt as regional provisions.
17.5.3
(Proposed new)
Car parking
HVC
Proposed new car parking control
Agree
Adopt suggested wording or similar.
17.5.3
(Proposed new)
Passive surveillance
CCC
Proposed new passive surveillance clause.
Agree
Adopt suggested wording or similar.
17.5.4
(Proposed new)
Siting of mechanical plant and
HVC
Suggested provision requiring heat pumps, hot water units,
and the like, to not visible from frontage.
Agreed.
Template limited exemption 6.1.2 exempts such things
if ‘to the side and rear of a building’.
88
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
miscellaneous equipment
Regional Project Response
Therefore, controls are needed for such things to the
front of a building.
17.6.1 A2
Muted colours adjoining a
residential zone
BC
I think you could basically switch your PC to the AS. It is
definite enough I think.
Agree.
Plus adopt the more definitive wording for this
provision suggested elsewhere (referring to Aust
Standards colours).
17.8
Subdivision
TPC
17.8 – Subdivision
Query whether furthers zone purpose?
Limits subdivision to certain uses, not all of which are provided
for in the Use Table.
Agree.
Ensure subdivision possible for all possible uses.
17.8 A1
Subdivision (17.7 in HCC
draft)
HCC
Comment – not specific enough for an acceptable solution.
Suggest delete last part. Suggest redraft to:
Subdivision is for the purpose of providing lots for public open
space, a riparian reserve, public services or utilities, in which
case the lots must be as appropriate for the intended purpose
and site characteristics.
Also applies to Recreation Zone, Open Space Zone,
Agree.
Note that the deletion of the last part would actually
make the provisions less specific, not more specific.
However, it is considered appropriate to fully rely on
the relevant public authority to determine what lot is
appropriate.
HVC
Sports and recreation
Moved to ‘no permit required’ from ‘permitted’ with the
qualification: ‘only if provided by the Council or an agency’
It is considered that Sports and recreation use class can be
adequate considered as No Permit Required where the works
are provided by the Council or an agency (rather than
Permitted). The works would still need to satisfy all use and
development standards but this avoids the need for a permitted
planning application so that ancillary matters can be
conditioned. Southern Water can be considered through the
Agree.
18.0 Recreation Zone
18.2
Use Table
89
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
building permit process.
18.3.1
Use standard for commercial
use.
CCC
Suggest delete.
Not agree.
But change to refer to ‘discretionary use’
18.4.1
Use standard adjoining a
residential zone
CCC
Suggest amend objective to delete words ‘near a residential
zone’
Changes to ‘within 50 m of a res zone’
18.4.1 A1
Use standard adjoining a
residential zone
CCC
Suggest change 50 metre limit to 200 metres.
Possibly make distance regional optional ??
18.4.1 P1
Use standard adjoining a
residential zone
CCC
Add ‘ and patron ‘ after ‘commercial’.
Agree.
18.4.2 P1
Noise emissions
CCC
Suggested additional subclauses.
Agree.
Add suggested words or similar.
18.4.3 A1/ P1
Light emissions
CCC
Suggested additional clauses for both As and PC
Agree.
Add suggested words or similar.
18.4.4 A1/ P1
Traffic and behaviours
(Proposed new)
CCC
Suggested new clauses for traffic and behaviours”
Agree.
Add suggested words or similar.
18.5.1
Title
CCC
Suggest change to ‘setbacks, height and design’
Change as per broader scheme heading changes.
18.5.1 P2
Building height
HCC
The PC provides for a locally determined absolute height limit.
Suggest remove (absolute) prohibition to allow some flexibility
on these large sites in Hobart. May limit opportunities for
communications facilities.
Not agree.
Drafting instructions are that PCs should not provide
open-ended discretion to relax ASs.
Suggest Hobart set a very high absolute height limit.
Re: communications facilities: suggest
Telecommunications zone provide over-riding height
90
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
limit …?
18.5.2
Landscaping
TPC
Objective does not reflect title or content of AS or PC regarding
‘visual amenity’. Suggest review
Agree
18.5.2 A1
Landscaping
HVC
Proposed new AS for landscaping (instead of ‘no acceptable
solution’)
A bare bones acceptable solution without which all
development would be discretionary. Regulating landscaping
through a development standard is a difficult task however
without this development standard there would be no head of
power to require detailed landscape plans as a planning permit
condition.
Agree.
Adopt the proposed provision (or modification thereof)
as regional common provision.
18.5.3
(Proposed new)
Fences
CCC
Suggested new addition for fences.
Agree.
Add suggested words or similar.
18.5.3
(Proposed new)
Fencing
HCC
Proposed (local) additional standard pertaining to fencing.
Noted.
Potentially adopt as regional provisions.
18.6.1 P1
Dev stds for buildings and
works adjoining a residential
zone.
Setback for buildings.
HCC
The PC requires consideration of:
Agree.0.
Development should not reduce hours of sunlight if
already at bare minimum on 21 June.
The provisions are less prescriptive in regard to
overlooking / privacy and visual impact, and therefore
provide sufficient ability to consider what is
‘unreasonable’ in the circumstances.
18.6.1 A2/P2
CCC
•
a specified minimum hours of sunlight on 31 June.
•
overlooking / loss of privacy
• visual impact.
Comment: It could be very difficult to comply with this provision
on south facing slopes. In fact this could effectively prohibit
some development irrespective of circumstances. Suggest
some wording be added e.g. “..taking into account aspect and
slope”.
Also applies to Open Space Zone
Suggested new wording.
Agree – in part.
See similar comment and resolution.
91
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
18.7
Subdivision
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
TPC
Query whether furthers zone purpose?
Limits subdivision to certain uses, not all of which are provided
for in the Use Table.
Agree.
Ensure subdivision possible for all possible uses.
19.2
Use Table
TPC
Use Table Qualification for Vehicle Parking use: ‘only if
associated with an open space use’
Ambiguous descriptor. Redraft to make the intention clear.
Also revise in 19.3.1 P3.
Agree
19.5.1 P2
Building height
HCC
The PC provides for a locally determined absolute height limit.
Suggest remove (absolute) prohibition to allow some flexibility
on these large sites in Hobart. May limit opportunities for
communications facilities.
Not agree.
Drafting instructions are that PCs should not provide
open-ended discretion to relax ASs.
Suggest Hobart set a very high absolute height limit.
Re: communications facilities: suggest
Telecommunications zone provide over-riding height
limit …?
19.5.2
Landscaping
BC
This should only apply to discretionary uses (as it does for the
same clause in the Comm Purposes and Recreation Zones)
Unclear.
Same wording is used in the zones referred to in
comment.
19.5.2
Landscaping
TPC
Objective does not reflect title or content of AS or PC regarding
‘visual amenity’. Suggest review
Agree
19.5.2 A1
Landscaping
HVC
Proposed new AS for landscaping (instead of ‘no acceptable
solution’)
A bare bones acceptable solution without which all
development would be discretionary. Regulating landscaping
through a development standard is a difficult task however
without this development standard there would be no head of
power to require detailed landscape plans as a planning permit
condition.
Agree.
Adopt the proposed provision (or modification thereof)
as regional common provision.
19.0 Open Space Zone
92
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
19.5.3
(Proposed new)
Fencing
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
HCC
Proposed (local) additional standard pertaining to fencing.
Noted.
Potentially adopt as regional provisions.
Allowable uses in the business
and commercial zones
TPC
The Advisory Committee suggests review of the allowable
uses in the commercial and business zones to ensure the
Regional Land Use Strategy is furthered.
Agree.
This has already been occurring through the TRGMetro group’s recent meetings reviewing these zones.
20.1.2
Purpose
TRG-Metro
(02/10/12)
Suggest change purpose statement to:
Agree.
20.1
Purpose
(Proposed new
CCC
Suggest additional purpose statement:
20.2
Use Table
TRG-Metro
(02/10/12)
Business and professional services is permitted with
optional qualification ‘Only if consulting room, medical centre or
post office. All agree.
Agree.
20.2
Use Table
TPC
Community meeting and entertainment is permitted with
qualification ‘Only if for community uses’ and discretionary with
qualification “Except if permitted’. The permitted qualification is
inconsistent with the zone purpose 20.1.8 (regional mandatory
provision), To allow for dining and entertainment activities at
night within food premises or local hotel.
Revise qualification or redraft zone purpose statement.
Further consideration.
20.2
Use Table
TRG-Metro
(02/10/12)
Community meeting and entertainment is permitted with
qualification ‘Only if for community uses’
Qualification is deficient. Only for an art and craft centre or a
Agree – in principle
‘Community uses’ is insufficiently defined.
20.0 Local Business Zone
“To ensure that facilities are accessible by public transport and
by walking and cycling.”
“To ensure that building design is compatible with surrounding
development, particularly on land in other zones.”
93
Agree.
Correlates with standards for development adjoining a
residential zone.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
community hall. The balance should be D.
The qualification should specify the particular defined
uses.
20.2
Use Table
CCC
Community meeting and entertainment is permitted with
qualification ‘Only if for community uses’
Suggest change qualification to:
“Only if for art and craft centre or public art gallery”
Agree – in principle
‘Community uses’ is insufficiently defined.
The qualification should specify the particular defined
uses.
20.2
Use Table
TRG-Metro
(02/10/12)
Educational and occasional care in ‘no permit required’
Qualification reads:
“Only if for home-based child care in accordance with a licence
under the Child Care Act 2001”
Need to clarify whether home based child care is ancillary to
‘residential’ use or is “educational and occasional care”.
Clarification:
The Child Care Act 2001 defines Home based child
care as:
“home-based child care means the provision of child
care –
(a) in the child's primary or other residence; or
(b) in the child carer's primary residence; or
(c) in the approved premises of the child carer;”
Because it may be in a premises that is not the carer’s
primary residence, it cannot be classified under the
‘residential’ Use Class and needs to be retained under
‘educational and occasional care’.
20.2
Use Table
CCC
Educational and occasional care in ‘permitted’
Need to change qualification to add:
Only if employment training facility and except if no permit
required.
Agree
20.2
Use Table
TRG-Metro
(02/10/12)
Educational and occasional care in ‘permitted’
Need to change qualification to add:
Only if employment training facility and except if no permit
required.
Agree
20.2
Use Table
TRG-Metro
(02/10/12)
Food Services qualification is P ‘except if a drive-thru’.
Replace qualification with:
“Except if a take away food premises with a drive through
Agree
94
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
facility”
20.2
Use Table
TRG-Metro
(02/10/12)
General retail and hire - except if adult sex product shop
Ensure qualification is locally variable
Agree
20.2
Use Table
TPC
Passive recreation. Permitted status.
Query whether should be NPR, not permitted.
Agree.
20.2
Use Table
Residential use at ground
level on street front not to be
permitted.
HVC
Residential.
Suggest expand qualification as follows:
“Only if home-based business, hostel, multiple dwellings or
single dwelling above ground level or more than 25m from
public road.”
To reserve the street level for commercial use
Agree – in part.
Not agree to the specification of uses at regional level.
This part of the qualification appropriate as a local
provision.
Agree to the principle of allowing ground level
residential use if at rear. Further consideration needed
as to whether this is best done by specifying a distance
setback, as suggested.
This matter may be too complicated to deal with as a
qualification in the Use Table. May be better as a
standard that provides for AS if at rear or upper floors.
(Also, refer below comment)
20.2
Use Table
Residential use at ground
level on street front not to be
permitted.
TRG-Metro
(02/10/12)
Residential – Only if above ground floor level
Local Business Zones (in metro areas):
Metro Councils agree with qualification as written.
Needs to also say: ‘Except if no permit required’
Agree
20.2
Use Table
Residential use at ground
level on street front not to be
permitted.
TRG
(20/07/12)
Residential.
Local Business Zones (in country towns): Co-located
Residential Use.
It was agreed the proposed regional provisions calling for colocated residential use to be on first floor is not appropriate in
country towns.
It was agreed this needs to be altered so that it is clear
it is appropriate on ground floor, but not located at the
street front.
This matter may be too complicated to deal with as a
qualification in the Use Table. May be better as a
standard that provides for AS if at rear or upper floors.
(Also, refer above comment)
20.2
TRG-Metro
Visitor accommodation
Agree
95
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Use Table
Residential use at ground
level on street front not to be
permitted.
(02/10/12)
Current draft has it permitted. Should be discretionary
20.2
Use Table
TRG-Metro
(02/10/12)
Business and professional services is discretionary.
Needs optional qualification ‘Except if permitted’
Agree.
20.4
(Proposed new)
Scale of Use
HVC
Proposed new standard governing ‘scale of use’.
Objective: “To ensure that non-residential uses primarily serve
the convenience and basic requirements of local residents and
visitor population.”
Explanation: To implement the zone purposes through an
appropriate consideration of scale. 250m2 is based in part from
advice from the Tasmanian Planning Scheme that the
maximum size of a local shop (in a residential or business
zone) should be 200m2 and therefore a larger figure may be
more appropriate for business activity in a Local Business
Zone
Noted.
Local provision.
Clause numbering and parenting needs to be
considered so as not to through out following regionally
consistent clause numbers.
20.2
Use Table
TRG-Metro
(02/10/12)
Food Services.
In ‘D’ needs qualification ‘Except if permitted’
Agree
20.2
Use Table
TRG-Metro
(02/10/12)
Vehicle fuel sales and service.
Discretionary: but needs local qualification:
All OK subject to qualification”: Must have frontage and access
to <insert> level in road hierarchy or <insert name> road.
Agree
20.3.
Use Standards
TRG-Metro
(22/10/12)
Included flood light, commercial vehicle, outdoor storage.
Agree.
(Refer to CCC drafting.)
20.3.
Use Standards adjoining a
residential zone
TRG-Metro
(22/10/12)
Change all ‘Use Standards Adjoining a Residential Zone” to
just “Use Standards”.
For those that are important close to a residential zone , say
this within the standard itself.
Agree.
(Refer to CCC drafting.)
96
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
20.4
Development Standards
TRG-Metro
(22/10/12)
For development close to a res zone, use the same 50m
distance concept as used in Use Standards.
Agree.
20.5.2 A1 (& P1)
Building design - streetscape
HVC
Suggested wording for an AS for streetscape (instead of ‘no
acceptable solution’)
Agree
Adopt wording, or minor modification thereof.
(Also, some of HVC’s local additions to the PC appear
ok for regional level)
20.5.2 A2/P2
Building design – facade
facing car parking or public
open space
HVC
Suggested wording for control of facade facing car parking or
public open space.
20.5.2 A3/P3
View – mechanical pump and
equipment
HVC
Suggested provision requiring heat pumps, hot water units,
and the like, to not visible from frontage.
Agreed.
Template limited exemption 6.1.2 exempts such things
if ‘to the side and rear of a building’.
Therefore, controls are needed for such things to the
front of a building.
20.5.2 A4/P4
Retain existing awnings
HVC
20.5.3
Passive surveillance
HVC
Suggest delete this provision entirely.
Issue adequately addressed by proposed new standards under
20.5.2.
(Possibly agree)
20.6.1
Subdivision – Building Area
BC
In the interest of having an AS for this matter in the LBZ, why
not just require a 10 x 15 rectangle as in the Gen Res Zone?
Agree.
Size of building are to be regional optional.
20.7
(Proposed new)
Development standards for
residential Use Class
HVC
Suggest new provision for single and multiple dwellings.
Amenity, sunlight, etc.
Agree.
97
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
21.0 General Business Zone
Allowable uses in the business
and commercial zones
TPC
The Advisory Committee suggests review of the allowable
uses in the commercial and business zones to ensure the
Regional Land Use Strategy is furthered.
Agree.
This has already been occurring through the TRGMetro group’s recent meetings reviewing these zones.
21.2
Use Table
TPC
Food Services qualification is P ‘except if a drive-thru’.
Suggest replacing with ‘drive through’ to be consistent with
Macquarie Dictionary term.
Agree
21.2
Use Table
TPC
General retail and hire.
Query whether too restrictive and should this use be NPR in
the General Business Zone with a qualification ‘except if
2
department store or shop greater than 500m GFA’, and retain
P and D qualifications as stated.
Clarification:
A change of use to general retail and hire may
necessitate the need for conditions. For example, car
parking requirement.
Retain as permitted.
21.2
Use Table
TPC
Natural and cultural values management.
Consider making this use NPR.
Agree
21.2
Use Table
TPC
Passive recreation.
Consider making this use NPR.
Agree
21.2
Use Table
TPC
Visitor accommodation.
Consider adding a qualification to state Discretionary ‘only if
above ground floor level’ consistent with Residential use.
Not agree.
21.3.1
(Proposed new)
Use standard – parking,
unloading, etc. commercial
vehicles
HVC
Proposed new standard for parking, unloading, etc.
commercial vehicles.
Similar standard proposed for the Commercial Zone and based
on Regional Model Planning Scheme standard for the Light
Industrial Zone
Agree.
Add.
21.3.
Use Standards
TRG-Metro
(22/10/12)
Included Use Standards adjoining a residential zone.
Agree.
98
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
21.4
Development Standards
TRG-Metro
(22/10/12)
For development close to a res zone, use the same 50m
distance concept as used in Use Standards.
Agree.
21.4.2 A1 (& P1)
Building design - streetscape
HVC
Suggested wording for an AS for streetscape (instead of ‘no
acceptable solution’)
Agree
Adopt wording, or minor modification thereof.
(Also, some of HVC’s local additions to the PC appear
ok for regional level)
21.4.2 A2/P2
Building design – facade
facing car parking or public
open space
HVC
Suggested wording for control of facade facing car parking or
public open space.
The proposed acceptable solution and performance criteria are
in lieu of 21.4.3 and seek to retain a permitted application
pathway within the zone whilst focusing on what is considered
to be the main passive surveillance / Crime Prevention through
Environmental Design aspect.
Agree – in part.
21.4.2 A3/P3
View – mechanical pump and
equipment
HVC
Proposed provisions
Agree – in part.
21.4.2 A4/P4
Retain existing awnings
HVC
Proposed provisions
Agree – in part.
21.4.3
Passive surveillance
HVC
Suggest delete this provision entirely.
Issue adequately addressed by proposed new standards under
20.5.2.
(Possibly agree)
21.6
(Proposed new)
Development standards for
residential Use Class
HVC
Suggest new provision for single and multiple dwellings.
Amenity, sunlight, etc.
Agree.
TPC
22.1.3 Central Business Zone Purpose - To encourage high
Agree.
22.0 Central Business Zone
Zone Purpose - Additional
99
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
statement required to
implement standards / provide
guidance to discretionary use
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
density residential development and visitor accommodation
within the activity centre above ground floor level and
surrounding the core commercial activity centre.
How is the ‘core commercial area’ to be determined?
Further guidance on consideration of discretionary
development necessary.
Reconsider.
Allowable uses in the business
and commercial zones
TPC
The Advisory Committee suggests review of the allowable
uses in the commercial and business zones to ensure the
Regional Land Use Strategy is furthered.
Agree.
This has already been occurring through the TRGMetro group’s recent meetings reviewing these zones.
22.1.3
Purpose
TRG-Metro
(02/10/12)
Change ‘encourage’ to ‘facilitate’
Agree
22.1.3
Purpose
TRG-Metro
(02/10/12)
Make regional optional, as not appropriate for Clarence
Agree
22.1.6
Purpose
TRG-Metro
(02/10/12)
Change wording as follows, and apply to all four activity
centres, but as regional optional:
“To provide a safe, comfortable and pleasant environment for
workers, residents and visitors through the provision of high
quality urban spaces and urban design.”
Agree
22.2
Use Table
TRG-Metro
(02/10/12)
Residential – only if home based business”
Make ‘No Permit Required’
Agree
22.2
Use Table
TRG-Metro
(02/10/12)
Educational and occasional care – Only if above ground
floor level
Make ‘Permitted’
Agree
22.2
Use Table
TPC
Food Services qualification is P ‘except if a drive-thru’.
Suggest replacing with ‘drive through’ to be consistent with
Macquarie Dictionary term.
Agree
Refer below also:
22.2
Use Table
TRG-Metro
(02/10/12)
Food Services qualification is P ‘except if a drive-thru’.
Replace qualification with:
“Except if a take away food premises with a drive through
Agree
100
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
facility”
22.2
Use Table
TRG-Metro
(02/10/12)
General retail and hire
Retain as ‘Permitted’, but with local qualifications re: adult sex
product shop, supermarket.
Agree
22.2
Use Table
TRG-Metro
(02/10/12)
Hospital services
Make ‘Discretionary’
Agree
22.2
Use Table
TRG-Metro
(02/10/12)
Hotel Industry – except if adult entertainment venue
Needs to be optional whether ‘P’ or ‘D’.
Agree
22.2
Use Table
TRG-Metro
(02/10/12)
Research and development
Retain as ‘P’, but with qualification: ‘Only if above ground floor
level’.
Add to ‘D’ with qualification ‘Except if Permitted’
Agree
22.2
Use Table
TRG-Metro
(02/10/12)
Residential
Retain as ‘P’, but with qualification: ‘Only if above ground floor
level and except if No Permit Required’
Agree
22.2
Use Table
TRG-Metro
(02/10/12)
Vehicle parking
Make ‘Discretionary’
Agree
22.2
Use Table
TRG-Metro
(02/10/12)
Custodial facility - Only if a remand centre (use only in
Primary Activity Centre)
Keep ‘D’, but make optional
Agree
22.2
Use Table
TRG-Metro
(02/10/12)
Educational and occasional care
Keep ‘D” but add qualification ‘Except if Permitted’
Agree
22.2
Use Table
TRG-Metro
(02/10/12)
General retail and hire
Make ‘D’, but with local qualifications re: adult sex product
shop, supermarket.
Agree
22.2
Use Table
TRG-Metro
(02/10/12)
Residential
Retain as ‘D’, but with qualification: Except if No Permit
Agree
101
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Required or Permitted’
22.2
Use Table
TRG-Metro
(02/10/12)
Service industry
Keep ‘D” but add qualification ‘Only if an extension to an
existing use’
Agree
22.2
Use Table
TRG-Metro
(02/10/12)
Sports and recreation
Keep ‘D” but allow for local qualification
Agree
22.2
Use Table
TRG-Metro
(02/10/12)
Storage
Keep ‘D” but make optional and allow for local qualification
Agree
22.2
Use Table
TRG-Metro
(02/10/12)
Tourist operation
Keep ‘D” but make optional and allow for local qualification
Agree
22.2
Use Table
TRG-Metro
(02/10/12)
Vehicle fuel sales and service
Keep ‘D” but allow for local qualification
Agree
22.2
Use Table
TRG-Metro
(02/10/12)
Qualification – Only if above ground floor level
Change to:
“Only if above ground floor level (except for access)”
Agree
22.3.
Use Standards
TRG-Metro
(22/10/12)
Included Use Standards adjoining a residential zone.
Agree.
22.4
Development Standards
TRG-Metro
(22/10/12)
For development close to a res zone, use the same 50m
distance concept as used in Use Standards.
Agree.
Local differences across the
region
TRG-Metro
(22/10/12)
The Commercial Zone will be used in quite different situations
across the four large metro council areas. This zone will need
to be significantly modified locally to suit.
Acknowledge.
A greater proportion of regional optional or local
provisions will be required, compared to other zones.
Zone purpose
Lacking implementation
TPC
23.1.1 Zone Purpose - To provide for large floor area retailing
and service industries.
Agree.
Consider additional standard.
23.0 Commercial Zone
102
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
standard.
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
No standard implemented in zone provisions.
Could potentially benefit from minimum floor area requirement
for retail type use classes (eg. Bulky Goods Sales and General
Retail and Hire) to ensure that the zone purpose is delivered
and that it differentiates the Commercial Zone from the
business zones
Zone purpose
Lacking implementation
standard.
TPC
23.1.2 Zone Purpose - To provide for a specific mix of activities
(describe mix) that cannot be accommodated in other Activity
Centres and does not compromise the viability of those
Centres.
Is this adequate guidance in consideration of discretionary
use?
Is a use standard required?
Agree.
Consider additional standard.
Possibly reword the purpose statement to provide
greater clarity.
Allowable uses in the business
and commercial zones
TPC
The Advisory Committee suggests review of the allowable
uses in the commercial and business zones to ensure the
Regional Land Use Strategy is furthered.
Agree.
This has already been occurring through the TRGMetro group’s recent meetings reviewing these zones.
23.2
Use Table
TPC
Business and professional services
The qualification ‘only if for campus-style complex’ is
ambiguous. Redraft.
Agree.
Redraft. Intention needs to remain, however.
23.2
Use Table
TPC
General retail and hire
Query whether this use should be permitted, with a
qualification to a min. GFA. Retail is an integral part of the
zone purpose.
Further discussion.
23.2
Use Table
HVC
Various local modifications made by HVC.
Noted.
Local provisions.
21.3 and 23.4
Use Standards and
Development Standards near
a residential zone
TRG-Metro
(22/10/12)
Included Use and Development Standards adjoining a
residential zone.
Agree.
Make optional.
23.3.1
HVC
Suggest new use standard.
Agree – in part.
103
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
(Proposed new)
Amenity of a discretionary use
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Objective: “To protect the amenity of a sensitive use on land
that adjoins the zone.”
Agree to include standards on land neighbouring a
residential zone – but as for those for Light Industrial
Zone.
23.3.2
(Proposed new)
Commercial vehicle access.
HVC
Suggest new use standard.
Objective: “To ensure that commercial vehicle movements to
or from a site do not result in unreasonable adverse impact on
residential amenity.”
Agree – in part.
Agree to include standards on land neighbouring a
residential zone – but as for those for Light Industrial
Zone.
23.3.3
(Proposed new)
Outdoor storage
HVC
Suggest new use standard.
Objective: “To ensure that outdoor storage does not
unreasonably impact visual amenity of the adjoining General
Residential Zone, public roads or other public places.”
Agree – in part.
Agree to include standards on land neighbouring a
residential zone – but as for those for Light Industrial
Zone.
24.2
Use Table
HVC
Various local modifications made by HVC.
Noted.
Local provisions.
24.2
Use Table
HVC
Suggest delete: “Residential – only if caretakers dwelling,
home based business or an extension to an existing dwelling
or ancillary dwelling”.
A caretakers dwelling would be assessed as part of the
associated industrial use and not as a separate use.
Agree - re: caretakers dwelling.
The qualification allowing for extensions to existing
dwellings, etc. should be regional optional.
24.2
Use Table
TRG-Metro
(22/10/12)
Noted that Clarence needs to continue to allow for the
following uses:
Community meeting and entertainment - churches, function
centres.
CCC will need to add a new local zone purpose statement.
(Planning authorities to add as local provisions)
24.2
Use Table
TRG-Metro
(22/10/12)
Suggest the following be provided as regional optional:
Crematoria
Dog pond
Sport and recreation – driving range & large floor space sports
(Planning authorities to add as local provisions)
24.0 Light Industrial Zone
104
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
venue
24.3.1
Use Standards
CCC
Suggest change just to ‘Use Standards’.
Change ‘Noise Emissions’ standards to just ‘Emissions’, keep
the noise emissions AS/PC and retain application only to ‘the
boundary of a res zone’ and add a general dust/smell/fumes
standard that applies everywhere.
Agree in part.
Retain separate use standards.
24.3.
Use Standards
TRG-Metro
(22/10/12)
Included impacts from dust, aerosols, particles, smell, fumes.
(Check NEPM)
Agree.
(Refer to CCC drafting.)
24.3.
Use Standards
TRG-Metro
(22/10/12)
Included flood light emissions to lighting.
(Also apply to General Industrial Zone ?)
Agree.
(Refer to CCC drafting.)
However, do not apply to General Industrial Zone
24.3.4
Outdoor storage
CCC
Suggest change just to
Outdoor storage areas must be located behind the building line
and the goods or materials stored therein screened from view
from adjoining land in a residential zone, public roads and
other public places.
Agree.
Adopt suggested words or similar.
24.3.4
Outdoor storage
TRG-Metro
(22/10/12)
Change this to a development standard.
Change similarly to other zones (business, commercial, etc)
Agree.
24.4
Development standards –
streetscape/landscape
TRG-Metro
(22/10/12)
Streetscape/landscape standards should be included in this
zone.
Depth of landscaping needs to be kept variable.
Agree
Refer GCC draft wording
24.4
Development standards –
building design
TRG-Metro
(22/10/12)
Suggested improvements - Refer GCC draft wording
Agree
Refer GCC draft wording
24.4.1 A4
Proposed new 24.4.2
‘fencing’ / ‘landscaping’
HCC
Separate ‘fencing’ from ‘landscaping’
Agree.
Delete ‘fencing’ from 24.4.1 A4 and add proposed new
24.4.2.
24.4.1
TRG-Metro
Fencing.
Agree.
105
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
fencing standard
(22/10/12)
Use HCC draft
Adopt suggested words or similar.
24.5.1 A4
Buildings and works adjoining
a residential zone
HVC
Suggest add:
Landscaping must be provided along a boundary with a
residential zone for a minimum depth of 2 metres and a
boundary fence must be no more than 2.1 metres high and
must not contain barb wire.
Agree.
Standards generally
CCC
Significant amendments proposed.
Consider
Regional purpose statement:
not necessary
TPC
25.1.4 (Mandatory Regional Provision) - ‘To restrict
intensification of existing non-conforming uses’.
This is already controlled under the Act, and should be deleted,
and the remaining statements renumbered accordingly.
Agree.
25.2
Use Table
TRG-Metro
(22/10/12)
Provide for the following to be regional optional in
‘discretionary’:
Pleasure boat facility
Research and development
Parking
Agree
25.3
Use Standards Adjoining a
Residential Zone
TPC
25.3 Use Standards Adjoining a Residential Zone are not
consistent with 25.1.1 Zone Purpose To provide for manufacturing, processing, repair, storage and
distribution of goods and materials where there may be
impacts on neighbouring uses
and indirectly 25.1.3 Zone Purpose - To promote efficient use
of existing industrial land stock.
Query whether these development standards undermine the
intent of the Zone; more appropriate for Light Industrial Zoning
application?
Agree.
Delete provisions.
General industrial zoned land must be able to operate
unfettered.
25.5
TPC
25.5 Development Standards Adjoining a Residential Zone are
Agree.
25.0 General Industrial Zone
106
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Development Standards
Adjoining a Residential Zone
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
not consistent with 25.1.1 Zone Purpose To provide for manufacturing, processing, repair, storage and
distribution of goods and materials where there may be
impacts on neighbouring uses
and indirectly 25.1.3 Zone Purpose - To promote efficient use
of existing industrial land stock.
Query whether these development standards undermine the
intent of the Zone; more appropriate for Light Industrial Zoning
application?
Delete provisions.
General industrial zoned land must be able to operate
unfettered.
HVC
Delete – not applicable.
Agree.
Delete provisions.
General industrial zoned land must be able to operate
unfettered.
26.1.3
Purpose
CCC
Suggest amend to:
“To provide for non-agricultural use or development, such as
tourism and retailing, that ,where it supports existing
agriculture, aquaculture, forestry, mining and other primary
industries.”
Agree,
Adopt suggested wording or similar.
(Use ‘if’ instead of ‘where’)
26.1.5
Purpose
CCC
Suggest delete 26.1.5
“To provide for a level of protection for agricultural land that
may become viable under future changing agricultural
conditions.”
Not agree.
However, rewording of this statement should occur to
clarify meaning.
26.2
Use Table
HVC
Suggest add to ‘no permit required’:
“Educational and occasional care - Only if for home-based
child care in accordance with a licence under the Child Care
Act 2001”.
Not agree.
Conditions may be appropriate (e.g. safe vehicular
access).
Add to ‘permitted’ instead.
26.2
CCC
Food services:
Agree
25.5
Development Standards
Adjoining a Residential Zone
26.0 Rural Resource Zone
107
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Use Table
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Suggest change qualification to:
Only if for the serving agricultural produce primarily on the site
from the local area
26.2
Use Table
CCC
Manufacturing and processing :
Suggest add qualification:
“Only if manufacturing or processing products produced
primarily on the site.”
Agree – in principle.
Change qualification to refer to rural / agricultural
manufactured / processed items
26.2
Use Table
CHC
Residential: Only a ‘single dwelling’ allowable on each title.
The limit of one residence could be too restrictive on
agricultural land, ie. For employee residences.
No agree.
Almost all substantive farming operations have more
than one title. Many of the larger operations (that might
need an on-farm manager in addition to the farm
owner) have more than one dwelling on the farm in any
case.
New dwellings in agricultural areas should be restricted
to those that are absolutely necessary for agricultural
purposes. Each dwelling otherwise is a potential
inhibiter of farming operations on surrounding land.
26.2
Use Table
HVC
Visitor accommodation:
Suggest delete the qualification limiting the type of visitor
accommodation.
Restrictions are considered unnecessary. The line between
some of the uses is considered uncertain. For instance, how
convenient does car parking need to be to a room for a
proposal to be classified as a motel rather than a serviced
apartment. More importantly, this would be inconsistent with
the current schemes which have permitted appropriate visitor
accommodation uses in rural areas, such as Huon Bush
Retreats (which could reasonably be described as either a
motel, holiday cabin or serviced apartment given the
uncertainties in the distinctions made between uses).
Agree.
A use standard may well be appropriate in lieu of the
deletion of the use table qualification, however.
26.3
TPC
26.3 Use Standards - matters more suited to the Use Table
qualifications.
Agree.
Place the relevant sub-paragraphs from this use
108
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Use Standards
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
AS is already a qualification in Use Table.
Redraft to discretionary sensitive uses only.
standard into the Use Table as qualifications, where
appropriate.
Have a ‘sensitive use’ use standard.
Use and development
standards generally
CCC
Various suggested amendments
Consider
26.4.1 P1
Setbacks and height for
buildings for sensitive use
(including residential use)
HVC
Suggest a lesser absolute minimum setback if the lot is less
than 1 ha in size.
An absolute minimum setback of 25m may provide
unnecessarily restrictive and unachievable on the various small
lots that will exist within the Rural Resource Zone. 10m is from
the Rural Resource Zone.
Agree.
Whilst the purpose of the provision is to protect
agricultural use on neighbouring land and
encroachment into the standard setback simply based
on the size of the lot should not be allowed, the
proposed provision would amount to a prohibition of
new dwellings on existing small lots.
This is not the policy of local government.
26.4.2
(Proposed new)
Ancillary dwellings.
HVC
Suggested new development standard dealing with ancillary
dwellings.
Intent of the clause is that the entire ancillary apartment use is
within 30m of the single dwelling. It is not a wall to wall or
similar setback.
Agree
It is unclear if the parameters placed on ancillary
dwellings by the State through the template definition
are intended by the State to be the only parameters.
It is noted that the template definition refers to
‘appurtenant’, which is subjective, whilst the HVC
proposed use standard provides objective statements
in the AS and an absolute limit in the PC.
In rural zones it is desirable to provide clear limits to
the possible separation of a dwelling and its ancillary
dwelling to minimise possible fettering of rural uses.
26.4.3 A1
Setbacks for buildings other
than for sensitive use.
HVC
Suggest delete subclause in AS stating that a building (other
than for a sensitive use) must be setback no less than 200
metres from a building for sensitive use on adjoining land.
This is a difficult and onerous imposition on applicants and the
Planning Authority. It is difficult to measure as it relies on
access to adjoining land. 200m is an excessively large buffer
for landscape reasons. It is too strong a restriction on
agricultural enterprise and would not further the zone purpose.
Agree – in part.
The intent of the provision is to minimise the possibility
for sensitive use to fetter non-sensitive use – although
the object does not state this.
The objective needs to be re-written.
However, it is acknowledged the minimum separation
distances stated in the AS and PC should reduced.
109
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
26.4.5 A4
Cut and fill
HVC
Suggest alternative wording.
The intent of this acceptable solution is supported but may best
occur by quantifying these outcomes. For instance, the
acceptable depth could specify a maximum depth of cut and fill
(perhaps 1m) possibly tied to an area (perhaps 200m2 of a site
can have cut and fill to a depth of more than 0.5m). In terms of
native vegetation clearance, an acceptable solution could
specify that perhaps 250m2 of native vegetation (trees, shrubs
and understorey) can be cleared within the zone for
construction and bushfire management of a dwelling increased
for agricultural uses (noting this issue will also likely be
addressed by a biodiversity code).
Agree.
As an AS, the provision needs to be written objectively.
Re-write.
26.5
Subdivision Standards
No creation of new titles.
TRG
(20/07/12)
For Councils in which the ‘no further subdivision’ in the Rural
Resource Zone is politically unacceptable, what should be the
fall-back standard?
It was agreed:
• Ideally, all Councils will recognise the need to
cease land fragmentation in the rural zones.
• However, for Councils in which the ‘no further
subdivision’ in the Rural Resource Zone is
unacceptable, the fall-back standard should be:
o Acceptable Solution: No acceptable solution.
o Performance Criteria: Subdivision possible if
supported by a Farm Management Plan, subject
to some of the boundary reorganisation clauses
to ensure as best outcomes as possible, and
subject to an absolute minimum size limit
(suggest: 40 hectares).
26.5
Subdivision Standards
No creation of new titles.
BC
Subdivision – prohibition of new titles: Need alternative to allow
some farming subdivision in limited and justifiable cases.
Acknowledged.
Provide an optional provision allowing creation of new
titles.
However, it must be acknowledged that agricultural
areas are already divided into too many, too small
titles. This is having a significant impact on the
agricultural wealth generating potential of Tasmania.
110
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Clauses allowing ‘justifiable subdivisions’ are too often
used as loophole clauses.
If genuine investors desire a small title for a very
intensive, high value per hectare per year enterprise,
there are already many to choose from.
Every non-genuine farming household in rural
agricultural areas represents a potential threat to the
full agricultural production activities on land
surrounding it.
26.5
Subdivision Standards
No creation of new titles.
CHC
Subdivision in the Rural Resource Zone: different provisions
needed to allow subdivision in certain cases, ie. For
agricultural purposes, for farming families, for forested land up
round the Lakes that has “no other value than for lifestyle lots”
Acknowledged.
See above comments.
Note that the zone includes a ‘boundary
reorganisation’ clause. Most rural properties are held in
multiple titles. If a section of the farm is to be turned
over to forestry, for example, and it requires separate
tenure, then the boundary reorganisation clause can
be used to achieve this whilst not increasing the overall
number of titles in the area.
In regard to forested land up round the Lakes that has
“no other value than for lifestyle lots”: If the intention is
to allow subdivision for lifestyle lots, then the land
should not be zone Rural Resource, as there would be
a fundamental conflict with the purpose of the zone.
26.5
Subdivision Standards
No creation of new titles.
SC
Whilst the intent to prevent further subdivision is understood it
is considered that as the provision for a minimum requirement
of 40 hectares has provided an appropriate lot size for Sorell
that this minimum be maintained.
Acknowledged.
Provide an optional provision allowing creation of new
titles.
However, it must be acknowledged that agricultural
areas are already divided into too many, too small
titles. This is having a significant impact on the
agricultural wealth generating potential of Tasmania.
Clauses allowing ‘justifiable subdivisions’ are too often
used as loophole clauses.
111
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
If genuine investors desire a small title for a very
intensive, high value per hectare per year enterprise,
there are already many to choose from.
Every non-genuine farming household in rural
agricultural areas represents a potential threat to the
full agricultural production activities on land
surrounding it.
26.5
Subdivision Standards
GCC
While the intention to ban subdivision in the Zone is noted,
Council has no objection to a 10 Ha minimum lot size in
Glenorchy because of the existing fragmented nature of its
rural land areas.
Agree – but ….
From a regional viewpoint, a 10 hectare minimum lot
size area perhaps should not be considered a genuine
‘rural resource area’. Perhaps Rural Living /
Environmental Living with 10 hectare minimum lot size
would be more appropriate?
40 ha is suggested by Regional Project as minimum,
for those Councils wishing to allow subdivision in RRZ.
(Preference of Regional Project is no further
subdivision, other than boundary reorganisation and
boundary adjustment).
26.5
Subdivision Standards
CCC
Suggest allowing subdivision – minimum lot size 20 ha.
Agree – but …
40 ha is suggested by Regional Project as minimum,
for those Councils wishing to allow subdivision in RRZ.
(Preference of Regional Project is no further
subdivision, other than boundary reorganisation and
boundary adjustment).
26.5.2 P2 (g)
Subdivision – boundary
reorganisation
HVC
Suggest change absolute minimum lot size for a reorganised
title from 10 ha to 1 Ha.
In the Huon Valley context, a 10ha minimum would generally
require a significant consolidation of existing lots and would act
as a disincentive to potentially appropriate re‐ organisations
which this clause would otherwise support.
Agree.
An absolute minimum of 10 ha would result in too
much land becoming ‘hobby farm’ rather than
significant agricultural enterprise land.
Provide for the absolute minimum to be 1 ha.
Note that this is an absolute minimum, and all the other
subclauses need to be met.
Note also that there is a tension here between
112
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
providing for as much land as possible to be
consolidated into large holdings able to accommodate
very significant agricultural enterprise, and ensuring
that neighbouring defacto rural living / hobby farm
blocks are sufficiently sizeable to avoid most adverse
impacts on residential amenity from such enterprises.
26.5.2 P2 (g)
Subdivision – boundary
reorganisation
SC
Support is given for the ability for the reorganisation of existing
title boundaries as this clearly provides an incentive for the
proper use of land for agriculture notwithstanding the legacy of
land fragmentation which generally may not have accorded
with the best use of the land. The intention to have as one of
the performance criteria that all new lots associated with a
reorganisation of titles be “no less that 10 hectares in size” is
supported. This would provide not only a minimum lot size
capable of providing sufficient separation from adjoining
agricultural activities but would also offer the capability of using
such a lot for some other form of agricultural use. Conversely
by allowing a smaller lot than 10 ha may encourage a “rural
residential” expectation at odds with a rural resource zone.
No agree.
An absolute minimum of 10 ha would result in too
much land becoming ‘hobby farm’ rather than
significant agricultural enterprise land, (refer above).
Provide for the absolute minimum to be 1 ha.
Note that this is an absolute minimum, and all the other
subclauses need to be met.
Note also that there is a tension here between
providing for as much land as possible to be
consolidated into large holdings able to accommodate
very significant agricultural enterprise, and ensuring
that neighbouring defacto rural living / hobby farm
blocks are sufficiently sizeable to avoid most adverse
impacts on residential amenity from such enterprises.
25.6
Subdivision
CCC
Use of term ‘viability’
Suggest change to ‘operation’ or ‘useability’
Consider.
Requirement for a whole farm management plan is
also an alternative to these words.
27.0 Significant Agriculture Zone
27.1.3
Regional Zone Purpose
TPC
Zone Purpose 27.1.3: To encourage use and development of
land based on comprehensive and sustainable land
management practices and infrastructure provision.
How is this implemented?
Clarify what is meant by “comprehensive and sustainable land
management practices & infrastructure provision”?
Clarification:
Implemented through the spatial allocation of zone.
Nevertheless, the statement should be reworded to
better reflect the scope of appropriate zone provisions.
27.1.4
CCC
Suggest change ‘viability’ to ‘use’
Consider
113
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Regional Zone Purpose
27.2
Use Table
CCC
Food services:
Suggest change qualification to:
Only if for the serving agricultural produce primarily on the site
from the local area
Agree
27.2
Use Table
HVC
Visitor accommodation:
Suggest delete the qualification limiting the type of visitor
accommodation to existing buildings or for seasonal
agricultural workers.
The use qualifications would be unnecessarily restrictive and
not further the zone purpose.
Not agree.
Various Use & Development
Stds
CCC
Various suggested changes
Consider
27.3
Use Standards
TPC
27.3 Use Standards - matters already part of the Use Table
qualifications.
AS is already a qualification in Use Table.
Delete.
Agree.
Delete duplications.
27.4.2
(Proposed new)
Ancillary dwellings.
HVC
Suggested new development standard dealing with ancillary
dwellings.
Intent of the clause is that the entire ancillary apartment use is
within 30m of the single dwelling. It is not a wall to wall or
similar setback.
It is unclear with the parameters placed on ancillary
dwellings by the State through the template definition
are intended by the State to be the only parameters.
Refer to TPC for comment.
It is noted that the template definition refers to
‘appurtenant’, which is subjective, whilst the HVC
proposed use standard provides objective statements
in the AS and an absolute limit in the PC.
27.4.3
Setbacks and height for
buildings other than for
sensitive use
Regional
Project
Objective needs to be rewritten.
A major objective is to ensure sensitive use does not fetter
non-sensitive use.
Amend objective.
Consider reducing the absolute minimum separation
distances in the PC
114
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
27.5.1
Subdivision
No creation of new titles.
SC
The provisions preventing further subdivision are supported as
this provides for a clear direction that such land should not be
further fragmented. Once again support is given for the ability
for the reorganisation of existing title boundaries as this clearly
provides an incentive for the proper use of land for agriculture.
As this land use zoning is often predicated on an irrigation
scheme the ability for the reorganisation of titles may positively
influence a rationalisation of titles, dwelling / building locations
and various farm practices to limit land use conflict.
Noted.
Agree.
27.5.1
Subdivision
No creation of new titles.
SC
Suggest allowing subdivision, subject to a PC. (Draft wording
provided by CCC).
Noted.
Agree.
27.5.2
Subdivision – Reorganisation
of Boundaries
TPC
Objective 27.5.2 Subdivision – Reorganisation of Boundaries To promote the consolidation of agricultural land and to allow
for the rearrangement of existing titles, if appropriate, to
provide for a better division of land.
Standards do not adequately implement objective.
A1 provides for no new lots; whereas PC2 contemplates new
lots?
Is 9.2 Adjustment of a Boundary sufficient to implement
objective?
Also requirement for SAP under A2 does not seem adequate
mechanism to implement objective.
Review for consistency.
Clarification:
It is considered that, generally, the standards
implement the objective. However,
modification/improvement will be considered.
This provisions is not to allow for an increase in the
number of lots – except for public purposes. Hence A1
allows for an increase in the number of lots if for such
purposes, and there is no PC otherwise.
9.2 Adjustment of Boundary is insufficient to implement
this objective, which contemplates a very significant rearrangement of boundaries.
Any SAP would have to be subject to a planning
scheme amendment. This process would ensure it
satisfactorily achieve the objectives. Firstly through the
initial planning authority design process and then
through the TPC statutory assessment and approval
process. It is therefore considered that there are
sufficient safeguards in the system to prevent a SAP
being amending to the scheme that is deficient.
115
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
28.0 Utilities Zone
28.2
Use Table
HCC
General retail and hire
Add and make discretionary, with qualification: Only at
(existing landfill site).
This use will allow for activities such as the Resource Tip
Shop.
Agree.
Add as optional regional common provision.
(Note – question: is a ‘tip shop’ ancillary to waste
disposal site?)
28.2
Use Table
HCC
Recycling and waste disposal
Should be permitted so that conditions can be applied if
necessary.
Agree.
Change to permitted
28.2
Use Table
HVC
Research and development
Add to ‘discretionary’
Agree
28.2
Use Table
TPC
Storage and bulky goods sales
Use Table - Qualification “Only if associated with…” (for both
Storage & Bulky goods sales)
Consistency with Clause 8.2.2?
A use or development that is directly associated with and a
subservient part of another use on the same site must be
defined and categorised into the same use class as that other
use.
Further consideration necessary … ?
28.2
Use Table
HCC
Service industry
Add and make discretionary.
Uses in this group such as machinery and vehicle cleaning and
servicing activities are often associated with utilities uses
Agree.
Add.
28.2
Use Table
HCC
Storage
Add to qualification:
Only if associated with a utility or recycling and waste disposal
Agree.
Add.
28.4.4
Use Standards – Outdoor
CCC
Suggest should apply to any adjoining land – not just land in a
residential zone.
?
116
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Storage
28.5.1 P2
Building height
HCC
Suggest no absolute max height given the varied nature of
sites in the zone, eg old quarries, McRobies Gully, sewerage
treatment plants etc
Agree.
28.5.1 P2
Building height
HVC
Suggest no absolute max height.
An absolute maximum height may unnecessarily restrict
development that is otherwise entirely consistent with the zone
and may be incongruous with the particular needs of utility
providers.
Agree.
28.5.1 P2
Building height
CCC
Suggest no absolute max height in PC
Agree.
28.6.1 A3
Dev. stds adjoining a
residential zone - landscaping
CCC
Suggest refer explicitly to the General Residential Zone and
the Low Density Zone, instead or ‘a residential zone’.
Agree, in part.
If not refer directly to the specific zones, need to define
what are ‘the residential zones’.
28.7.1
Subdivision.
TPC
Performance Criteria simply repeats Objectives.
Review to replace with assessment criteria that specify means
of meeting objective.
Agree in part.
Will attempt further clarity. But may not be scope for
significant additions to the provision.
29.0 Environmental Management Zone
29.1
Purpose statement
Water catchment areas.
TPC
29.1.3 (Environmental Management Zone) – To ensure use
and development within the water catchment areas do not
result in the degradation of a clean water supply.
Appears to be something that should be managed through a
Code
Agree.
Wetlands and waterways code is the correct
mechanism.
29.1
Purpose statement
The coast.
TPC
Purpose Statements are not implemented in use table and the
standards:
To protect and maintain existing coastal features and
landforms. &
To minimise disturbance of natural coastal processes
Agree - possibly.
Could either add relevant standards, or remove
purpose statements and deal with this issue in a
coastal values code.
However, the mere spatial application of the code to
117
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Suggest review
coastal areas is in itself a way of achieving the
purpose.
29.1
Purpose statement.
(Proposed new)
Passive recreational
opportunities.
HCC
Proposed new 29.1.7:
To encourage passive recreational opportunities which are
consistent with the protection of bushland and foreshore
values.
Agree.
Add.
29.1
Purpose statement
(Proposed new)
Commercial development on
coast
HVC
Proposed new statement:
“To ensure that commercial development of the coast is
dependent on a coastal location and minimises loss ecological,
scientific, cultural or aesthetic value”.
Derived from the State Coastal Policy 1996
Explanation:
This matter is intended to be covered in a code dealing
with the coast.
29.1.8
LAOs & DFCSs
PWS
Despite there being no stated DFC, PWS would like to see
something stated, realising that it will be hard to get a ‘one size
fits all’ statement, given that the zoning applies to privately
owned land within the EMZ as well. The following is offered for
your consideration, taking into account the draft wording from
the NW EMZ:
Environmental management land comprises areas where
native vegetation, natural landforms and waters are relatively
intact or are progressively being restored to a natural condition.
Land is sparsely occupied. However, it is not devoid of use or
development and accommodates activity dependent on access
to a naturally occurring resource, including in remote and or
sensitive locations.
Agree – in part.
The Southern Region has taken the general approach
that these statements are ‘local’ and therefore to be
filled in by local planning authorities, as they deem
necessary, noting that in the case of this zone planning
authorities would best liaise with PWS in relation to
PWS-managed reserves.
Ideally, these statements would be tailored to each
local area, which in the case of this zone might mean
that each reserved area might have its own unique
statements.
The suggested wording will nevertheless be put
forward as option regional text for planning authorities
to consider using – or basing more tailored wording on.
29.2
Use Table
TPC
Community meeting & entertainment use class is prohibited,
which appears to be not consistent with the Zone Purpose To
provide for limited community, tourism and recreational uses
that do not impact on natural values or residential amenity.
Uncertainty as to which uses ‘limited community’ relates to,
Agree.
Reconsider.
118
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
given Community meeting & entertainment use class is
prohibited
There are other uses that could be considered ‘community’ in
broad sense such as emergency services, i.e. fire station.
Review.
29.2
Use Table
PWS
Your suggestion to zone reserve classes that allow for
extractive industry as Rural Resource has been considered in
the context of the scale of the land that it involves. There are
four reserve classes for which PWS has management
responsibility that this affects, with a summary of the total land
in each class provided below:
Reserve class - hectares reserved [on land only (30 June
2010)] - % of State’s land area
Conservation Area - 535,749 ha - 7.9%
Regional Reserve - 242,744 ha - 3.6%
Nature Recreation Area - 66,437 ha - 1.0%
Public Reserve (Crown Lands Act)* - 29,900 ha - 0.4%
Total - 874,830 ha - 12.8%
*Noted as informal reserve on other public land.
In addition to the above, there are 213,600ha of Forest
Reserve which is subject to Mineral Resources Development
Act. At present it is unclear whether any of that may be
transferred to PWS under the IGA, but consider it prudent to
draw attention to the size of that reservation.
Having read through the provisions for the RR Zone, it does
not appear to offer a logical fit with these reserve classes.
Significant distinctions would need to be drawn between the
PWS managed land and remainder of RR Zone that could add
complexity, and potential confusion on the part of the public.
Also, importantly the reserve classes under the Nature
Conservation Act 2002 have been clearly set aside for nature
conservation and are primarily managed for that purpose under
119
Agree.
Amend as suggested.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
the National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2012.
As such, PWS thinks a more practical solution would be to
include ‘Extractive Industry’ as a discretionary use within
the EMZ, with the qualification “Only in Conservation Area,
Regional Reserve, Nature Recreation Area, and Public
Reserve (Crown Lands Act)”.
We feel that joint discussion with the other regions would be
useful for this provision as well as the approach to use and
standards in the EMZ more broadly. Your advice on the best
way to do this would be appreciated.
29.2
Use Table
HVC
Resource development and also resource processing (in
the ‘discretionary’ category).
Suggest expand the qualification as follows:
“Only if marine farming shore facility or other shore based
facility servicing the timber or agriculture industry and existing
facility are inadequate for industry needs”
Also: expansion port and shipping qualification as follows:
Only if existing facility or a new facility servicing one or more
Resource processing uses.
The coast is a valued resources for many purposes, including
natural values, visual amenity and for local economic
development. The regional qualifications would inhibit access
to the coastline for Resource processing uses and require any
proposals to be considered through a planning scheme
amendment process. The zone purpose statements and
development standards ensure that any consideration of this
use class would protect any key natural or aesthetic values.
Agree – in part.
Need to consider the interaction of the zone provisions
with the coastal code provisions – which intend to
provide for development dependant on a coastal
location.
Having said that, the establishment of a new port and
shipping facility in a coastal location is perhaps
sufficiently unforeseeable and unusual that it should be
provided for through the S.43A application process
rather than attempting to arrange for the planning
scheme to accommodate it.
There would be many similarly unforeseeable and
unusual development proposals. If planning schemes
attempt to accommodate many of these types of
proposals they will be several thousand pages long.
29.2
Use Table
PWS
Resource development
While there is no definition of ‘resource development’ (or
‘extraction’ or ‘harvesting’) the qualification given would be too
limited for uses commonly occurring in several classes of
reserve eg. mineral exploration, bee keeping, wind farms, kelp
harvesting, native seed collecting and dams (i.e. harvesting
Agree – to some.
Mineral exploration is exempt from regulation by
planning schemes by legislation. Planning schemes
therefore do not need to mention this activity.
Dams are exempt from regulation by planning
120
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
water) – all land uses that exist or have been proposed on
PWS managed land, and are likely be applied for again in
future. This use could be qualified "Except if permitted "?
schemes by legislation. Planning schemes therefore
do not need to mention this activity.
Wind farms are developments that are so unusual and
so substantial that they should be dealt with under
S43A of LUPAA.
Agree - bee keeping to be qualified as permitted (ie
where in accordance with a reserved area’s statutory
management plan).
Agree – kelp harvesting and native seed collection to
be qualified as permitted (ie where in accordance with
a reserved area’s statutory management plan).
29.2
Use Table
PWS
Signs – No Permit Required
Without knowing what the Signs Code (E.17.0) will contain we
may be pre-emptive, but PWS preference would be for all our
standard signage to be ‘No Permit Required’. These range
from A4 sized safety warning signs through to the National
Park name signage which can be over two metres in length. In
most parks there are dozens of signs, and they need replacing
on an ad-hoc basis, due to environmental degradation,
vandalism or change in style. It would be cumbersome to apply
for a permit each time one (or several) need replacing.
Agree.
Ensure signs code provides for PWS standard signage
to be exempt or ‘no permit required’.
(Note that replacement of existing signs with same or
similar would, in any case, be accompanied by
‘existing use rights’ and would not need planning
approval regardless of what the planning scheme
says.)
29.2
Use Table
PWS
Visitor accommodation
Recognising that visitor accommodation envisaged in a Mgt
Plan is ‘permitted’, we suggest that the qualification for
discretionary visitor accommodation be changed from "only if
b’n’b, camping and caravan park, overnight camping area" to
"except if permitted". Our rationale is that a proponent may
approach PWS with an accommodation type that does not fit
the three current definitions. For instance, a walkers or fishers
hut doesn’t neatly fit the definition of a b’n’b, camping and
caravan park, or overnight camping area. The proposal could
have considerable merit, be consistent with a management
plan but not identified in it, or there may not be a management
Agree.
Modify scheme as suggested.
121
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
plan. The scale of the proposal may not warrant a
management plan change or the preparation of a new
management plan. This simple phrasing change could offer
that possibility of it being assessed, without binding PWS or
the planning authority to approving it.
29.2
Use Table
“… in accordance with a
reserved area’s statutory
management plan … “
PWS
We support the list of permitted use classes with the
qualification that only if in accord with a reserve's statutory
management plan. As discussed with you previously the
process for assessment and approval of stat management
plans involves public comment and independent review by the
TPC so it is a robust process. The draft Southern Region
approach is mid way between where the other regions appear
to be at present. The NW Region draft provisions make most
uses permitted with no discretionary uses in the EMZ, whilst
the Northern Region draft designates only pleasure boat facility
and minor utilities as permitted uses , all the rest are
discretionary.
Noted.
29.2
Use Table
“… in accordance with a
reserved area’s statutory
management plan … “
TPC
Use Table Qualification: ‘Only if in accordance with a reserved
area’s statutory management plan’ (all permitted uses). This is
inconsistent with Zone Purpose 29.1.2 (Template mandatory
provision), “consistent with any strategies for protection and
management”
Query whether the qualification is too narrow – i.e. will all land
zoned Environmental Management be within state reserve (as
per definition)?
Not easily determined for purpose of a qualification, suggest
relocating to a standard.
Not agree.
Intention is to permit any use and development that
has been endorsed through a reserved area’s statutory
management plan.
Some EMZ land will not be reserved, and some
reserved areas will not have a statutory management
plan. However this is of no consequence to this
provision.
Statutory management plans are produced through a
statutory process involving public consultation and
TPC hearings and determination. The outcome of such
a rigorous process should not then be thrown back into
uncertainty by the local planning scheme. They are
considered as appropriate planning controls by other
instruments. For example, the State Coastal Policy
defines ‘planning controls’ so as to include these
statutory management plans.
122
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
29.2
Use Table
“… in accordance with a
reserved area’s statutory
management plan … “
GCC
Many references in qualifications to “Only if in accordance with
a reserved area’s statutory management plan. “ There may be
other zoned areas that are managed by the Wellington Park
Trust or a council e.g. coastal reserve. Use status should not
be affected solely on the basis of whether or not the land is
managed by the State government.
Explanation – see above comments in response to
TPC queries.
Wellington Park Trust management plan is intended to
be included in definition of ‘a reserved area’s statutory
management plan’.
29.3.1
Use Standard
Note relating to on-going use.
TPC
9.3.1 Use Standards for Reserved Land (Environmental
Management Zone) - To maintain permitted use status for use
complying with the statutory objectives for management of
reserved land and with any relevant statutory management
plan.
Does not relate to the ongoing operation or performance of a
use.
Suggest revision of objective or delete standard.
Not agree, generally.
The action of the standard is to maintain permitted
pathway through use standards for permitted uses in
the Use Table.
However, rewording may be appropriate nevertheless.
29.4.1
Setback from frontage
PWS
There are numerous examples where PWS buildings are within
20m of the road (Ben Lomond, Freycinet, Remarkable Cave,
Cockle Creek). Typically it is toilets, where they need to be
within a 20m distance for servicing (i.e. pumping out) We query
what the intent of this standard is, particularly if a proposal
could satisfy the three points within performance criteria?
Agree.
Note that the number provided in both the AS and PC
is regional optional.
Therefore, the Regional Project accepts that local
variation to this number is acceptable.
(Also note that ‘setback’ is defined as being measured
from a lot boundary, and ‘frontage’ is the boundary that
abuts a road. Setback from frontage, therefore, does
not apply to roads internal to a reserve).
29.4.3 AS
Setback from Tas Wilderness
World Heritage Area
PWS
Acceptable solution - clarification over whether this 500m
setback is from within or external to the TWWHA? If the latter,
then all relevant abutting zones would need to reference this
provision.
Noted.
This is external to the TWWHA ie. setback from the
TWWHA.
Need clarification from PWS whether this is excessive
as a default acceptable solution. May need to
reconsider when see draft zone maps.
29.4.3 PC
Setback from Tas Wilderness
PWS
Performance criteria - the advice we have recently received
from DPIPWE specialists on soil pathogens (as part of Three
Capes Track procurement) has been that soil, gravel, rock and
Agree.
Adopt suggested wording, or similar.
123
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
World Heritage Area
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
other quarried material can never be declared as weed or
pathogen free – the best that it can be described as is ‘lowrisk’. Therefore the wording either needs to change to ‘from a
certified low-risk source, as assessed by a suitably qualified
person’ or a recognition that any structures would need to be
constructed without new soil/gravel/rock being brought to site,
and with scrupulous washdown of all machinery and workers
equipment.
29.4.3
Setback from Tas Wilderness
World Heritage Area
HCC
Make this an optional provision, it is not relevant in Hobart
Agree.
29.4.4
Setback from Significant
Agriculture and Rural
Resource Zone
HCC
Make this an optional provision, it is not relevant in Hobart
Agree.
29.4.5 P1
Building height
HCC
Suggest no max height given the nature of areas covered by
this zone in Hobart, may limit opportunities for communications
facilities etc.
Agree
Whilst drafting instructions urge that PCs not provide
unlimited scope for discretion, most land in this zone
will be under direct management of a public authority
and a degree of self regulation can be expected.
29.4.6 A2
Exterior appearance
HCC
Suggest more specific acceptable solution:
Colours used for all exterior building surfaces are to be the
dark toned colours specified in AS2700: 2011 Colour
Standards for General Purposes.
Agree.
29.4.6 P2
Exterior appearance
HCC
Wording suggested (instead of ‘no performance criteria’):
Reflection from surfaces including glass and unpainted metal
surfaces must avoid adverse impacts on visual amenity and
detracting from the contribution the site makes to the
landscape, views and vistas.
Agree.
29.4.6 A3
Cut and fill
HCC
Suggest more specific acceptable solution:
The maximum depth of any filling or excavation except for
Agree.
124
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
building support purposes is 1m from natural ground level.
29.4.6 P3
Cut and fill
HCC
Wording suggested (instead of ‘no performance criteria’):
Excavation or filling must be kept to a minimum so that the
development does not:
(a) detract from the contribution the site makes to the
landscape, views and vistas; or
(b) affect land stability on the site or surrounding area.
Agree.
General flexibility
GCC
Council supports the use of a high degree of regional optional
provisions in this zone to enable the provisions to be tailored to
the limited range of sites for which the zone would be used.
Noted.
Tailored provisions for
particular sites.
HVC
HVC has drafted tailored provisions for particular sites.
Noted.
TPC
Port and Marine Zone –
31.1.1 (Template) - To provide for port and marine activity
related to shipping, and other associated transport facilities
and supply and storage
31.1.2 (Mandatory Regional Provision)- To provide for major
ports and other marine activities of regional strategic
importance that are reliant on a waterfront location and to allow
for other uses to support the port and marine purpose
Should this instead be to Protect Major Ports of regional
economic significance (List from Regional Strategy, i.e. Hobart
Port, Princes of Wales Bay marine industry precinct)?
ALSO: What does ‘reliant on waterfront location’ mean? Can
there be a port and marine activity that doesn’t rely on this
Agree.
Reword – similar to: ‘protect land for use and
development dependant on a coastal location’.
30.0 Major Tourism Zone
31.0 Port & Marine Zone
Zone purpose
Conflict between State and
Regional purpose statements
125
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
location?
Suggest reword the regional objective.
Zone Purpose
No statement regarding
protection of adjacent
residential amenity.
TPC
No Zone Purpose statement to implement the development
objectives in relation to residential amenity.
Majority of standards relate to the protection of residential
amenity – is this necessary given the prime intent is for
shipping and maritime purposes?
Suggest review.
Agree.
Delete provisions.
Major port facilities must be able to operate unfettered.
For non-regionally significant port facilities under this
zone bordering residential areas it may be appropriate
for the local planning authority to include local
standards protecting adjacent residential amenity.
31.2
Use Table
HCC
General comment:
Many of these uses are not allowed under the Selfs Point Land
Act 1951. The use table in this zone should be optional
regional or local provisions.
Agree.
Make optional regional.
31.2
Use Table
TPC
Qualification (Only if within proclaimed wharf area)
Clarity of meaning.
Difficult to find proclamations to determine extend of area.
Suggest replace “proclaimed wharf area” with specified
location.
Clarification:
S.20 (10) LUPAA states that a planning scheme
cannot prohibit or require a discretionary permit for use
or development for port and shipping purposes within a
proclaimed wharf area.
Retain words as is.
31.2
Use Table
TPC
Qualification “Only if within proclaimed wharf area” for Port and
Shipping; Storage; Transport depot and distribution.
Question whether the qualification is necessary – if the Zone
applies outside a proclaimed wharf area, the prohibition of
these uses would be inconsistent with the Zone Purpose.
Agree.
Change as suggested.
31.3
Use standards adjoining a
residential zone.
HCC
Not required in this zone in Hobart.
Noted.
Discussion: Consideration needs to be given to
removing these provisions from the regional model.
The economic impact of fettering port activity within
significant ports needs to be taken into account.
31.4.1
HCC
Suggest delete proposed objective, which refers to
Agree, in part.
126
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Setbacks, height and design
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
streetscape, etc, with:
To ensure that the site layout and the height of development
minimises the impact on scenic values when viewed from the
Derwent River and surrounding areas.
Reconstruct objective to provide for regional option to
include view from the water.
31.4.1
Setbacks, height and design
TPC
31.4.1 – Setbacks, height and design –
Performance Criteria P2 states ‘Building height must be no
more than 15 metres and must satisfy all of the following…
Does this implement the Zone Purpose to provide for port and
shipping activities?
Is this adequate for port operations? Recommend
consult/clarify with TasPorts.
Agree.
The height value has not been discussed in detail with
port authorities.
Consult with Tasports.
31.4.1 P2
Building height
HCC
Suggest no max height given the nature of the uses.
Explanation.
Retain absolute maximum height in regional model, but
consult with Tasports re: appropriate limit.
Drafting instructions urge that PCs not provide
unlimited scope for discretion.
31.4.1 A3 & P3
(Passive surveillance,
streetscape.)
HCC
Not required given the nature of this zone in Hobart.
Agree.
(TPC has same comment)
31.5
Development standards
adjoining a residential zone.
HCC
Not required in this zone in Hobart.
Agree.
(TPC has same comment)
31.6.1 P2 (a)
Subdivision
HCC
Suggested change:
(a) be reasonably capable of accommodating maritime use
and development consistent with the Zone Purpose;
Agree – mostly.
Change to:
a) be reasonably capable of accommodating maritime
use and development consistent with the Zone
Purpose;
32.0 Particular Purpose Zone 1 – Urban Growth Zone
127
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
32.1.2
Regional Zone Purpose
TPC
Zone Purpose 32.1.2 : To ensure that the development of the
identified non-urban land does not prejudice its future urban
use and development.
Preference is to provide guidance in consideration of
discretionary use. i.e. To provide for limited residential,
agricultural uses provided that it does not prevent the future
large scale greenfield development.
Redraft or additional zone purpose statement.
Partially agree.
Purpose is achieved first and foremost through the
spatial allocation of the zone.
Nevertheless some redrafting is appropriate.
32.1.3
Regional Zone Purpose
TPC
Zone Purpose 32.1.3:
To support a land release program of rezoning of non-urban
land into urban land in accordance with the Greater Hobart
residential strategy.
Suggest providing further clarity as to the purpose of the zone
Clarification:
This zone is a key tool in the future urban land
identification, protection and release process.
This purpose statement provides a clear link to the use
of this zone to cover the Green Field Development
Precincts identified within the Greater Hobart UGB in
the STRLUS.
Spatial application of the zone.
Granton / Black Snake Lane
GCC
Council notes the intention to apply this zone to “greenfield
development precincts”. Because of the history of the Granton
area and the existence of specific provisions for the “Black
Snake Rural Village”, it is likely that Council will seek to
maintain a tailored approach to the vicinity – perhaps by way of
specific area plan over the Black Snake Village to maintain
general continuity with existing provisions.
Agree.
The STRLUS maps are or a scale and specifically
annotated so as not to be taken to be precise. They
are regional-scale maps portraying a regional intent.
The UGB / Greenfield Development Precinct maps are
no exception.
Local tailoring is required by Councils to produce their
planning scheme zone and overlay maps, to take
account of local, detailed circumstances.
33.0 Particular Purpose Zone 2 – Future Corridor Zone
E.1.0 Bushfire-Prone Areas Code
Inclusion of new BushfireProne Areas Code - PD5
TPC
Since the draft Regional Model was submitted to the TPC, PD5
– Bushfire-Prone Areas Code - has been finalised. The
128
Agree.
The State’s new Bushfire Prone Areas Code will be
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
Use of intent to enter a
LUPAA Part 5 Agreement as
an Acceptable Solution.
From
Regional
Project
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Regional Model will need to include this. Also, some other
provisions of the Model refer to the Bushfire Code or elements
it creates and these will have to be modified to reflect the final
version of the Bushfire Code.
included in the version of the Regional Model Planning
Scheme that will form the basis of the draft planning
schemes subject to (informal) public consultation in
April 2013.
This is a State mandated code.
The use of intent to enter into a LUPAA Part 5 Agreement
mechanism as an Acceptable Solution for various standards is
a significant concern:
1. Whether an agreement would successfully be concluded
between the various parties is entirely unknown at the
development application stage. It therefore does not
comply with the TPC’s drafting guidelines (PAN13) for the
Template.
2 The provisions appear to mandate that Council must enter
into such an agreement. This is an unacceptable situation
to local government, as it may subsequently be impossible
to devise an agreement acceptable to Council, the subject
landowner and the neighbouring landowner. More
importantly, a Council can quite legitimately take the policy
position that it will not enter into any such agreements
relating to bushfire matters.
3 If a Council does enter into such an agreement, it takes on a
significant measure of liability. No matter what onus the
agreement puts on the landowners concerned, ultimately
failure to comply with the agreement (for example, allowing
a fire hazard to develop) will have to be policed by
Councils. Each such agreement will therefore create a
potential legal liability situation for Councils. Local
government has not agreed this.
Discussion required with TPC
E.2.0 Potentially Contaminated Land Code
129
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
Potentially Contaminated Land
Code left blank in the draft
model scheme.
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
TPC
The Potentially Contaminated Land Code has been
intentionally left blank/unpopulated in the Regional Model
Planning Scheme, presumably due to the intended work to be
undertaken by the State expressed in the draft Planning
Directive.
The assessment of this code for application through the
Planning Directive process will continue but with less certainty
that any further new Codes for State wide application will be
issued before the interim planning schemes are declared.
Recommended that the Regional Model include a code based
on the latest available version of the draft State code.
Agree.
The draft planning schemes formally submitted to the
Minister will include either the finally-approved state
version of this code or a regional code based on the on
the latest available version of the draft State code but
modified to ‘fit’ the regional model.
The preliminary draft planning schemes subject to
(informal) public consultation in April 2013 will not
include either version. The heading will be retained,
however, with a note explaining that a state-wide code
is under development and will be included if finalised
prior to the formal submission of the scheme to the
Minister by the Council.
TPC
The Landslide Code has been intentionally left
blank/unpopulated in the Regional Model Planning Scheme,
presumably due to the intended work to be undertaken by the
State expressed in the draft Planning Directive.
The assessment of this code for application through the
Planning Directive process will continue but with less certainty
that any further new Codes for State wide application will be
issued before the interim planning schemes are declared.
Recommended that the Regional Model include a code based
on the latest available version of the draft State code.
Agree.
The draft planning schemes formally submitted to the
Minister will include either the finally-approved state
version of this code or a regional code based on the on
the latest available version of the draft State code but
modified to ‘fit’ the regional model.
The preliminary draft planning schemes subject to
(informal) public consultation in April 2013 will not
include either version. The heading will be retained,
however, with a note explaining that a state-wide code
is under development and will be included if finalised
prior to the formal submission of the scheme to the
Minister by the Council.
TPC
The Flood Prone Land Code has been intentionally left
Agree.
E.3.0 Landslide Code
Landslide Code left blank in
the draft model scheme.
E.4.0 Flood Prone Land Code
Flood Prone Land Code left
130
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
blank in the draft model
scheme.
Proposed ‘Liable to Flooding’
Code
CCC
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
blank/unpopulated in the Regional Model Planning Scheme,
presumably due to the intended work to be undertaken by the
State expressed in the draft Planning Directive.
The assessment of this code for application through the
Planning Directive process will continue but with less certainty
that any further new Codes for State wide application will be
issued before the interim planning schemes are declared.
Recommended that the Regional Model include a code based
on the latest available version of the draft State code.
The draft planning schemes formally submitted to the
Minister will include either the finally-approved state
version of this code or a regional code based on the on
the latest available version of the draft State code but
modified to ‘fit’ the regional model.
The preliminary draft planning schemes subject to
(informal) public consultation in April 2013 will not
include either version. The heading will be retained,
however, with a note explaining that a state-wide code
is under development and will be included if finalised
prior to the formal submission of the scheme to the
Minister by the Council.
See CCC draft code “Liable to Flooding”
If the statewide code is not finalised prior to the formal
submission of the draft planning schemes to the
Minister, the region may choose to develop a regional
code, (as explained above). The CCC ‘Liable to
Flooding’ code would be part of the input into such a
code, along with the latest draft state version
E.5.0 State Road & Rail Asset Code
Regional draft of the State
Road and Rail Asset Code not
consistent with latest version
at TPC.
TPC
The Road and Rail Asset Code has been populated in the
Regional Model Planning Scheme, however the drafting is not
consistent with the latest version of the draft Road and Railway
Asset Code prepared by Commission officers which is
understood to be subject of informal consultation with local
councils in November 2012.
The Regional Project to continue to work with DIER to
further develop this draft code to produce a draft that
will be included in the version of the Regional Model
Planning Scheme that will form the basis of the draft
planning schemes subject to (informal) public
consultation in April 2013.
Sensitive uses within 50
metres of a State road.
GCC
Existing sensitive uses within 50m of a state road appear to be
proposed to become existing non conforming uses.
The standards relating to use and development for sensitive
use are worded in a way that it is unclear what the intention is.
On the face of it all existing sensitive uses within 50m of a
state road would become existing non conforming use. This is
clearly unacceptable, given that this includes many entire
Review with DIER.
131
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
residential properties as well as schools and this would mean a
significant policy change. On the other hand subdivisions (but
not boundary adjustments) for sensitive uses may allow
building areas within 50m????
Absence of streetscape
provisions for State roads.
GCC
State roads are the front door to the state and its settlements,
yet there is nothing in this code that deals with streetscape or
with safer by design principles. Given that many of the state
roads form the first impression of a visitor to the state and to
individual towns, cities etc, streetscape is considered
absolutely critical and should be considered with and not be
overridden by concerns about moving vehicles. Accordingly, it
is considered that individual schemes must provide specific
direction for development along these routes, matters that
must be considered include:
•
Where buildings/properties back onto roads, the road
reserve must be landscaped such that the view from the
road is not one of dilapidated fencing with rubbish thrown
over it onto the reserve, or
•
Where buildings front onto roads, there must be a quality
presentation to the roads in terms of fencing, setbacks,
the types of buildings (e.g., not outbuildings) that
dominate the frontage
Review with DIER.
Landscaping on individual
properties
GCC
It is unclear to what extent the Code requirements would
override any of these principles (streetscaping / landscaping)
that may be outlined in individual zones. It is considered
imperative that the Code provides a mechanisms whereby the
above type of considerations become as important as the
objectives relating to safety, efficiency and amenity.
Review with DIER.
Duplication of other State
processes.
GCC
A number of the proposed standards duplicate existing
legislation that is currently considered under other state
processes, it is considered that any such duplication should be
removed from the Code, though it may be appropriate to
include footnotes (subject to a memorandum of understanding
between Council and DIER) to those legislative processes as
Review with DIER.
132
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
an aid for developers.
Classification of roads.
GCC
The code proposes a new classification for state roads. Given
that the DIER classes could be used, it is suggested that they
be adopted for use in the code.
Review with DIER.
Railway Crossings
Need for clause.
(Use of existing – E.5.6.1)
(New crossing – E.5.7.1)
GCC
A permit for level crossings under S38(1) of the Rail
Infrastructure Act 2007 is required under both standards
E.5.6.1 and E5.7.1 as part of the performance criteria, the
need for duplicating the approval processes for such level
crossings is disagreed with.
Regional guideline 3 states that:
Planning schemes should not purport to bring into force other
laws or regulations.
Other regulatory regimes exist outside planning schemes and
must be complied with regardless of whether planning
schemes say they should.
Considering all of the above, it is considered that standards
E.5.6.1 and E.5.7.1 should both be deleted from the code.
Agree.
Delete E.5.6.1 & E.5.7.1.
Replace with a (non-statutory) note alerting users to
the requirement under S38(1) of the Rail Infrastructure
Act 2007 for an approval from DIER.
Access to State Roads
(Use of existing – E.5.6.2)
(New access or junction –
E.5.7.2)
GCC
Similar to the discussion about level crossings above, Section
52A of the Roads and Jetties Acts 1935 provides controls over
accesses to (state) roads through the ‘limited access road
provisions. And, as for the level crossings, these clauses are
considered to contravene regional drafting guidelines 2 and 3.
Considering the above, it is considered that standards E.5.6.2
and E.5.7.2 should both be deleted from the code.
Agree – in part.
Agree that access issues (existing or proposed)
pertaining to limited access roads to be exempt.
However, there are state roads that are not limited
access roads, and the provisions (E.5.6.2 and E.5.7.2)
need to remain for them.
(Review Patrick comments re: local roads)
Future class 1 to 3 roads
GCC
The website
http://www.ozroads.com.au/TAS/classifications.htm states in
relation to future classified roads that:
Under section 9A of the Roads and Jetties Act 1935, the
133
Agree.
Needs amending.
The route of future roads will be defined and protected
in the planning scheme by use of the Particular
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Governor of Tasmania has the power to proclaim the future
route of any State Highway or proclaim the route of a future
State Highway (the difference being that one is concerned with
the relocation of an existing road; the other is concerned with
the location of future roads). The Governor also has the power
to proclaim these future routes as limited-access roads.
Acquisition of land is not always immediate; rather restrictions
are placed on the development of the land required for future
roads, such as prohibiting the erection of permanent buildings.
Accordingly, as for level crossings and new road accesses and
junctions above, accesses to future class 1 to 3 roads are
provided for under different legislation and contravene regional
guidelines 2 and 3. No provisions should be made for
accesses and crossing relating to future class 1 to 3 roads.
Purpose Zone – Future Road Corridor.
Therefore, this code needs to contain provisions for
sensitive uses setback from that zone.
The zone itself will control development within in. But
not development adjacent to it. Therefore this code will
need to perform this function.
Future State Roads
GCC
Use and development on land adjoining a future road should
be controlled and it is considered that these future roads must
be reliably identifiable (that is, they must be mapped) It is
considered that they can most easily be provided for by
ensuring that they are incorporated in the DIER hierarchy,
rather than setting up a whole regime for identifying such roads
through the planning system. If, for whatever reason (e.g. lack
of public consultation processes involved in the declaration of
such future roads) they can’t be incorporated in the DIER
hierarchy, than they must be shown on an overlay in the
planning scheme and DIER would have to apply to amend the
planning scheme each time it wants to provide for a new future
road. In either case, all standards would have to ensure that
they apply to both existing and future state roads.
Explanation.
The model scheme includes Particular Purpose Zone Future Road Corridor for this purpose.
Road classes / terminology
GCC
DIER has categorised its roads into 5 categories, this code has
put those 5 categories into 3 classes, why does the Code try to
create a new classification system that effectively duplicates
the DIER categories:
The definitions for the proposed classes are longer than the
definitions in the DIER ‘Tasmanian State Road Hierarchy, for
Explanation:
The codes does not put the 5 DIER road categories
into 3 categories.
The code deals only with state roads, which are
category 1, 2 and 3 roads.
The definitions of Class 1, 2 and 3 roads have been
134
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
example, the definition for a Class 1 road is proposed to be:
“means a major state road, carrying high passenger and freight
volumes that are the primary routes linking major population
centres, major ports and airports including category 1 (Trunk
Road)”
The definition for a category 1 –Trunk Roads in the DIER
document is:
“The primary freight and passenger roads connecting
Tasmania”
provided by DIER.
Discuss with DIER.
Sensitive uses - setbacks
GCC
The standards relating to use and development for sensitive
use are worded in a way that it is unclear what the intention is.
On the face of it all existing sensitive uses within 50m of a
state road would become existing non conforming use. This is
clearly unacceptable, given that this includes many entire
residential properties as well as schools and this would mean a
significant policy change. On the other hand subdivisions (but
not boundary adjustments) for sensitive uses may allow
building areas within 50m????
Not agree.
Existing sensitive uses within 50m of a state road
would only become existing non conforming use if the
code prohibits them. The code does not.
Signage
GCC
Signage on a state highway is a significant concern. Should it
be considered under this Code, or should the Signs Code have
specific provisions for signs on Category 1 to 5 roads?
Explanation:
Signage is dealt with under the signs code by requiring
signs to pertain to the property they are located on.
It is noted that the State has its own powers to remove
illegal signage from state highway reservations.
E.5.2.1 (b)
HCC
Define what is meant by ‘affects’ an existing access.
Agree.
Needs to be defined.
E.5.3.1
Definitions
GCC
Level crossing
means as defined in the Rail Infrastructure Act 2007.
This is defined as “Means a railway crossing at which the road
and the railway track intersect at or about the same level”
This means that in any reference to the term ‘level crossing’
there is no need to refer to the railway.
Agree.
Change all instances.
135
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
E.5.3.1
Definitions
GCC
Railway (proposed new)
A definition is required to identify which railways (including
future railways) are the subject of this code. This could
perhaps be done by reference to Schedule 1 in the Rail
Infrastructure Act 2007, though it is noted that that schedule
does not map the railway lines, accordingly it may be
necessary to provide an overlay. This schedule also does not
include future railway lines and they should also be provided
for.
Agree.
E.5.5.1 (a)
HCC
Provide some discretion to not require a TIA. Minor proposals
may not need it.
Agree.
Provide discretion.
E.5.5.1
GCC
Must or may??? (do we always need it?)
Agree.
Provide discretion.
E.5.5.1 (b) (i)
HCC
Written advice of road authority:
Issue arises when the road authority is the Council itself.
Explanation.
An unavoidable situation.
In any case, Council acting as a planning authority is a
different legal entity to Council acting as a road
authority. Councils must recognise this difference
internally.
IS THIS CODE APPLYING JUST TO STATE ROADS
OR NOT?
E.5.6.1 A1 (a)
HCC
‘Material change’ needs to be defined
Agree.
Define, or limit to a specified increase above current
number.
E.5.6.2 A1 (a)
HCC
“… 10 vehicle movements per day above existing”
Comment - There needs to be guidance to planning authorities
in respect of this. For dwellings there could /should be a
common standard based on trip generation standards that
have evolved over time. Other uses may not be so readily
assessable and for many if not all smaller developments could
rely on the information provided on the application form. Need
Explanation.
Intent is to provide a simple, clear and unambiguous
‘acceptable solution’.
Incorporating the HCC suggestion may push this over
the limit of an AS and into a PC.
Nonetheless, the Regional Project is open to
136
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
to confirm that such information is part of the application and
therefore enforceable?]
alternative suggestions.
E.5.6.3 A1 and A2
HCC
Should be a PC provided for each of these. For example,
double glazing of windows may provide solution for some
instances in regard to A1, and some minor additions (e.g. a
porch) may be reasonable in regard to A2.
Agree.
Provide PC.
(Drafting of a PC may not be completed in time for
April 2013 public consultation, however)
E.5.6.3
Setbacks for sensitive use
GCC
This clause purports to be about ‘extensions’ to existing uses.
Generally in planning schemes it is buildings that are
'extended' and uses that are 'intensified'. If this clause seeks
to ensure that extensions to buildings used for sensitive uses
must not reduce the setback, than this substandard is in fact a
development standard, not a use standard.
I note though that irrespective of AS A2, AS A1 as proposed
prevents any sensitive uses within 50m, making extensions to
buildings housing a sensitive use irrelevant. What is the
intention of these standards?
On a separate matter, outbuildings associated with a sensitive
use are classified as that use (e.g. a Single dwelling) How
does this clause effect the construction of outbuildings, given
that they would form a good sound barrier between for
example a house and the road, but given that they are by
definition a sensitive use?
Agree.
Amend
E.5.8.1
Setbacks for Buildings
GCC
In Glenorchy there are properties that run parallel to the
railway line and that are only 11.5 to 13m wide. Along the
Brooker Highway there are properties that are only 23m deep.
Accordingly, this standard would make all development on
many properties that front the railway and the Brooker in
Glenorchy discretionary as well as that it would make
development on many properties that don’t have a common
boundary with these facilities discretionary. This impact on
developers is considered unacceptable, particularly given that
there is not much in the performance criteria that would ever
REVIEW
137
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
result in conditions or refusals. Furthermore, it is noted that
50m of private land to provide for the matters provided for in
the objectives is considered to be a massive impact on private
land and the question must be asked if such imposition should
be compensated for?
I note that titles in Grant Court Granton have a restrictive
covenant that applies to a 20m wide strip of land where
dwellings and habitable buildings only are prohibited. On the
assumption that this covenant was created to address all
relative matters, why should for example outbuildings now
become discretionary in this area?
In conclusion, it is considered that the objectives of the
standard should be reviewed and standards should be devised
that achieve reasonable objectives without impacting
unnecessarily on developers.
Perhaps part of the solution would lie in DIER identifying what
setbacks are critical where and creating an overlay that
identifies those setbacks, either by drawing a setback line on a
map, or by providing a map that identifies different categories
of properties and then providing appropriate setbacks for each
category in a table.
In addition to the setbacks required for DIER requirements, it is
considered that setbacks should also include objectives that
relate to streetscape (see additional discussion in relation to
streetscape in general comments).
E.5.8.2 A2
HCC
The PC for A1 could also be applied to A2
Not agree.
Boundary adjustments should not diminish an existing
lot’s compliance.
E.6.0 Parking and Access Code
Various typos, minor
amendments
HCC
Various typos and minor amendments noted by HCC
Agree.
Amend.
Various typos, minor
GCC
Various typos and minor amendments noted by GCC
Agree.
138
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
amendments
Regional Project Response
Amend.
Reduce complexity for rural
context
TRG
(Meeting
20/07/12)
Should the proposed regional Parking and Access Code be
simplified for rural schemes?
It was agreed:
• The proposed regional Parking and Access Code
does not need to be simplified for rural schemes.
(However, since this meeting a number of Councils
have suggested simplifying code to a degree).
Reduce complexity for rural
context
HVC
The Code has been drafted for an urban context. Rural
Council’s will work to determine if some level of complexity can
be reduced. It is a necessary Code and even in its current
complex form would be appropriate
Acknowledge sentiments.
At this stage, work has not been undertaken to redraft
to reduce complexity for rural councils.
No need for formalised car
parking requirements for
resource development uses.
HVC
Reconsider the need for minimum car parking for Resource
development uses. Formalised car parking is often
unnecessary for agricultural enterprises.
Agree.
Clarify circumstances where scheme does not need to
set requirements.
Provided public roads and public land generally is not
used for parking, uses on large rural properties should
be left to the owner’s determination regarding parking
arrangements within the property.
Some standards do not need
to apply for very small car
parking requirements
HVC
For many standards (parking lighting and crime prevention
through environmental design) specify the minimum size of a
car park (i.e., minimum spaces) where these considerations
are in fact warranted.
Agree.
Set limits.
Bicycle facilities
GCC
The code adds provision for bicycle facilities, consistent with
Local and Regional Strategies.
Noted.
Single access per frontage
GCC
The single access per frontage clause is gone.
Explanation.
Has been placed in zone subdivision provisions, as
this issue generally arises when new lots are created.
Parking requirement per use
GCC
The parking requirements for individual uses should be
reviewed by an experienced consultant to ensure that the
parking requirements are reasonable and consistent with
regional and local strategies.
The Regional Project does not have the resources to
pursue the suggested consultancy work.
Parking requirement per use has been deduced from
comparisons with existing planning schemes in
139
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Tasmania and elsewhere.
Draft Code too onerous and
detailed for rural villages.
CHC
Seen as a bit irrelevant to CHC, given that parking is not an
issue anywhere. Considered as too onerous, and forcing
constant discretions for commercial developments. Could
council have their own version?
Agree.
Parking code should have optional modifications
appropriate to rural villages where parking is generally
not an issue.
Coverage
BC
Raised the issue of parking for ATMs, given they require
parking but are not dealt with by the Code.
Further investigate.
(Not clear if Council have even been taking DAs for
ATMs…)
Duplication of BCA
requirements for accessible
parking spaces.
TPC
The Building Code of Australia (BCA) determines the number
of accessible parking spaces required per use; however it is
accepted that this is determined after the planning process
occurs. There are concerns that Table E.6.1 duplicates
requirements of the Building Code of Australia under the
Building Act 2000. The development standards in E.6.6.2 –
Number of Accessible Car Parking Spaces for People with a
Disability should be reviewed carefully in this context.
Agree, in part.
Explanation:
Problems have occurred in the past due to the
accessible parking question being determined after the
planning process has finished. This has led to some
parking arrangements with poor outcomes for people
with disabilities.
The Model Scheme attempted to resolve this situation.
Nevertheless, the TPC’s point is taken: it appears not
possible to resolve this through planning scheme
regulation.
It is therefore proposed that the code include a nonstatutory footnote that design of parking facilities
provided for planning approval should have been
assessed by the project’s Building Surveyor for BCA
accessible parking requirements.
E.6.1.1
Purpose
GCC
Our Traffic Engineer suggests an additional purpose
statement:
“ensure sufficient parking is provided on site to minimise onstreet parking and maximise the efficiency of the road network”
Agree
E.6.1.1 (e)
Purpose
GCC
I would suggest there is too much detail in this statement,
detail that is better placed in relevant standards. Suggest
something more all encompassing like
Agree
140
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
“ensure that vehicle access and parking areas do not
adversely impact on amenity, site characteristics or hazards”;
The detail, e.g. dust mud etc, is more appropriately dealt with
in relevant standards that deal with surfacing of the car park
and light overspill should be dealt with in the lighting standard.
E.6.1.1 (g)
Purpose
GCC
This does not reflect the regional policy LUTI 1.9, which states:
“Ensure car parking requirements in planning schemes and
provision of public parking is consistent with achieving
increased usage of public transport” In fact, we have had no
discussion about how this policy will be implemented, but this
code at this point does not do anything to achieve the aim of
LUTI 1.9.
Explanation.
Parking provisions provide a maximum as well as a
minimum number of spaces.
6.6.1 A1 also provides for option for the Inner
Residential Zone to have lower (or no) car parking
requirement.
E.6.1.1
Purpose
(Proposed new)
GCC
Suggest add:
“incorporate total water cycle management and water sensitive
urban design principles in paved area planning to minimise
stormwater discharge to rivers”
Not agree.
This aspect is intended to be covered in the
Infrastructure Code.
E.6.2
Application
TPC
Exceptions to application of code should be located at E.6.4
Use or Development exempt from this Code.
Agree.
E.6.2.1
Application
TPC
Exemption from Code unnecessary
E.6.2.1 Parking and Access Code applies to all use and
developments, except
(a) single dwellings in the General Residential Zone;
Delete exemption, PD4 does not relate to the number of
parking spaces or access, which is to be controlled through the
Codes.
Further discussion needed:
It is understood that the State’s policy position is that
parking and access considerations are not to be
involved for single dwellings in the General Residential
Zone. It was understood that the PD4 is completely
self-contained and that no other provisions of the
planning scheme are able to be added to consideration
of ‘single dwellings in the general residential zone’.
If this is the case it would appear that the Parking &
Access Code would have to specifically exempt itself
from applying in this circumstance.
E.6.3.1
Definitions
GCC
passive surveillance – reference to ‘passers-by, casual
onlookers’.
Casual onlookers could also be from the development itself or
Explanation:
Passive surveillance has been moved to zone
141
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
across the street etc. Either list all locations from which a
casual onlooker may survey the site or don’t list any source
locations (safest, because you can’t miss any sources).
Furthermore, by stating some source locations, a person could
argue that passive surveillance from the development itself is
not relevant, when in fact that is the only source you have
control over at the development stage or into the future. (E.g.
if you approve a car park on the basis of passive surveillance
from a neighbouring site and than that site gets developed so
that surveillance is lost etc.)
provisions.
E.6.5.1 (a)
Application requirements
GCC
Some of this list are the type of vehicles to be parked (car,
bicycle and some of the list refers to the user people with a
disability or a cyclist. If they need to be listed (which I think is
unnecessary anyway) refer to the same type descriptors, either
cars, busses and bicycles or cyclists, people with disabilities
etc.
Agree.
No need to list the user types / parking types.
Delete.
E.6.6.1 A1 (c)
Number of Car Parking
Spaces
Proposed new
CCC
Suggest include:
“(c)
inclusive of any disabled parking required to satisfy
applicable legislation”.
And delete the disabled parking standard.
Agree.
Adopt suggested wording or similar.
This appears to solve problem of inter-relationship with
disabled parking requirements under BCA.
E.6.6.1 P1
Number of Car Parking
Spaces
Proposed new
CCC
Suggest include:
“The number of spaces is in accordance with a car parking
plan for the area, which has been adopted by the Council; and”
Agree.
Modify.
The AS should provide a connection to any car parking
plan for the area, and compliance to such a plan
should satisfy the AS.
The PC should provide scope for Council to vary
parking requirement in a parking plan.
E.6.6.1, E.6.6.2, E.6.6.3,
E.6.6.4
Use Standards regarding
Numbers of Parking Spaces.
TPC
Do these standards relate to the ongoing operation or
performance of use only?
More appropriately classified as Development Standards?
Explanation:
It is ‘use’ that determines parking requirement.
Provision of adequate parking is an ongoing
operational matter.
A change of use (only) must trigger reconsideration of
142
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
parking requirement.
E.6.6.1 A1
Number of Car Parking
Spaces
TPC
E.6.6.1 Number of Car Parking Spaces - A1
(b) no more than 20% of the requirement in Table E.6.1 if a
use or development requires 10 or more car parking spaces,
unless:
(i)………
Does this apply only for spaces over and above 10 (without
20% applied)?
Clauses (b) (i) and (ii) are intended to cross reference other
clauses.
Not clear what (i) and (ii) aim to achieve or how these are to be
populated.
Redraft to clarify meaning and avoid cross referencing.
Clarification:
(a) and (b) are intended to work in tandem, with the
former providing a minimum number of spaces and the
latter a maximum number of spaces (for medium-tolarge developments: i.e. those for which the table
specifies 10 or more as the minimum).
(b) (i) & (ii) are optional and are intended to provide for
other provisions of the scheme to over-ride this clause
(and therefore Table E.6.1) in special circumstances
where:
•
The planning authority has determined that
specific parking provisions apply in the Inner
Residential Zone (i.e. reduced, or no, parking
requirements).
or
•
The planning authority has created a specific
parking precinct plan and associated parking
provisions for a particular area (e.g. Hobart
CBD).
Notwithstanding all of the above, the attempt to put an
upper limit on the number of parking spaces is proving
to be awkward and quite complicated.
This issues is largely self-regulating in any case. In the
vast majority of situations, developers do not want to
expend resources on providing more spaces than they
have to.
Therefore, delete this regulation.
Most large metro councils have specific parking plans,
in any case – further rendering this regulation
unnecessary.
E.6.6.1
HCC
Parking requirements.
Agree.
143
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Number of Car Parking
Spaces
E.6.6.2 P1 (a), E.6.7.6 P1 (a)
Number of Accessible Car
Parking Spaces for People
with a Disability
TPC
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Review for consistency with equivalent provision in the
proposed Single and Multiple Dwellings Planning Directive
?
Assessment on whether compliance with the related
acceptable solution would “impose unjustifiable hardship on
the applicant” is not considered a matter that planning
schemes can provide for. In addition, the drafting does not
provide clear criteria for assessment.
Development standards E.6.6.2 P1 (a) and E.6.7.6 P1 (a) to be
redrafted to remove the following reference “…impose
unjustifiable hardship”, as well as the term and definition for
“unjustifiable hardship” in E.6.3.1
Agree.
The term, whilst used in the Building Code of Australia,
is insufficiently knowable to be used in planning
schemes.
The detail of the disable parking provisions are to
be deleted and replaced by reference and deferral
to the process under the BCA to determine
number.
E.6.6.3 & 6.6.4
Number of Motorcycle Parking
Spaces
CCC
Suggest merge the motorcycle parking standard with the
bicycle parking standard.
Not agree.
There are some differences between the two
provisions in the proposed ASs and PCs.
E.6.6.3
Number of Motorcycle Parking
Spaces
TPC
A1 Does not reference Table E.6.1 – Number of car,
motorcycle and bicycle parking spaces required.
Redraft A1 consistent with similar standards in Code and as
expected from table title.
Agree.
E.6.6.3 P1
Number of Motorcycle Parking
Spaces
HCC
Motorcycle parking demand:
Question: How is this determined?
Answer:
Through the additional application requirement
specified in 6.5.1 (a).
E.6.6.4 A1
Number of Bicycle Parking
Spaces
GCC
Additional rules were set out in the original draft version in
relation to calculation of bicycle parking requirements. For
consistency, it makes sense to reinstate these.
Not agree.
The calculation notes/instructions in the original draft
are necessary – but are best placed with the table.
E.6.6.4 P1
Number of Bicycle Parking
Spaces
GCC
If we are trying to promote bicycle use, then why are we
drafting this clause as a reduction clause. This approach is
inconsistent with the tenor of the objective for the standard.
Also the existing sub-clauses (including the one originally
drafted by me) are unsatisfactory.
Agree
Redraft using suggested words or similar.
144
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Suggest the following PC – borrowing from the draft City of
Hobart Planning Scheme:
“Sufficient bicycle parking must be provided to meet the
requirements of the use or development, having regard to:
The nature of the use;
The location of the use and its accessibility to cyclists.
The bicycle parking needs of workers and visitors or
customers”
E.6.6.4 P1 (b)
Number of Bicycle Parking
Spaces
HCC
GCC
Allowing ‘cost effectiveness’ of providing on-site bicycle
parking spaces to be a consideration in reduction from the AS
is questioned.
Consider threshold set in A3 S7.5.1 of the CHPS 2009.
Agree.
E.6.7.1
Location of Vehicular
Accesses
GCC
Objective (a)
Suggest rewrite to:
“(a)To ensure safe and efficient access for all road network
users, including, but not limited to: drivers, passengers,
pedestrians, and cyclists, by minimising:
…..”
Agree
E.6.7.1 A1
Location of Vehicular
Accesses
GCC
Suggest rewrite to:
“Not more than 1 vehicle access point per road frontage.”
Not agree.
Whilst this is shorter, it is important to maintain drafting
discipline in making the commencement phrase of
each pair of AS and PC identical wherever possible.
Combined with the principle that the commencement
phrase must always be the aspect of development that
the standard seeks to regulate, this ensures that each
AS / PC pair in fact deal with precisely the same thing.
E.6.7.1 P1
Location of Vehicular
Accesses
GCC
The opening sentence reads:
“The number of vehicle access points for each road frontage
must be minimised and must have regard to all of the
following:…”
Agree.
Needs redrafting.
145
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Comment:
“having regard to all of the following.” The existing wording
requires “the number of vehicle access points” to have regard
to clauses a to d which is nonsensical
E.6.7.1 P1
Location of Vehicular
Accesses
GCC
Suggest rewrite sub clauses as follows:
(a) access points must be positioned to minimise the loss of
on-street parking and provide, where possible, whole car
parking spaces between access points;
(b) the location of access points must prevent unreasonable
adverse amenity impacts on occupants of and visitors to
adjacent properties;
(c) any additional access points must be demonstrated as
necessary for the use of the site;
(d) the number and location of access points must prevent
unreasonable adverse effect upon streetscape.
with (c) being a new clause.
Agree.
Adopt suggested words or similar.
E.6.7.1 A1
Location of Vehicular
Accesses
HCC
‘Material change’ to be defined as: an increase of vehicle use
greater than 10%’
Agree
E.6.7.1 P1
Location of Vehicular
Accesses
HCC
Suggested additional subclause (d).
Agree
E.6.7.2 A1
Design of Vehicular Accesses
CCC
Suggest delete the PC.
The AS refers to compliance with Australian Standards.
Councils should not (cannot?) deviate from these.
Possibly agree ???
E.6.7.2 P1
Design of Vehicular Accesses
CCC
Suggest add new (d):
“(d)
Any heritage values of the streetscape.”
Not agree.
Heritage values in the streetscape that Council wishes
to recognise and protect should be done so with a
heritage precinct in the heritage code.
146
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
6.7.3
Vehicle Passing Areas Along
an Access
GCC
Should we express these matters in the same way as that they
are expressed in the multiple dwelling provisions? Specifically,
the draft multiple dwelling provisions have one standard for
design and location of access and that one standard deals with
number of accesses to a frontage, location, width and gradient,
parking bays etc, why are we ‘breaking’ each item into a
separate standard? (I actually agree that that is what we
should do, but it will cause internal inconsistency)
Acknowledge.
Review draft planning directive for residential
development with a view to consistence, where
agreeable.
E.6.7.3 A1
On-Site Turning
6000 vpd limit
GCC
Based on GCC experience, suggest that the figure should be
3000vpd
Agree – potentially.
Requires input from other Councils’ engineers.
E.6.7.3 A1
Vehicle passing
GCC
Suggest rewrite to:
Vehicular passing areas must:
(a) be provided if any of the following applies to an access:
(i) it serves more than 5 car parking spaces;
(ii) it is more than 30 metres long;
(iii) it meets a road serving more than 3000 vehicles
per day;
(b) be 6 metres long, 5.5 metres wide, and taper to the width
of the driveway;
(c) be have the first passing area constructed at the kerb;
(d) be at intervals of not more than 30 metres along the
access.
Agree.
Adopt suggested words or similar.
E.6.7.4 A1
On-Site Turning
6000 vpd limit
GCC
Based on GCC experience, suggest that the figure should be
3000vpd
Agree – potentially.
Requires input from other Councils’ engineers.
E.6.7.4 A1
On-Site Turning
GCC
This clause has been redrafted from the original version and
this has modified the effect of the acceptable solution. The
original drafting had “except where the entry or exit is for not
more than two dwelling units onto a road carrying less than
Agree.
Adopt suggested words or similar.
147
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
6000 vehicles per day”. The two components are linked and to
separate them out changes the meaning of the clause.
Suggested rewrite to:
“On-site turning must be provided to enable vehicles to exit a
site in a forward direction, except where the access is any of
the following:
(a)
serving no more than two dwelling units;
(b)
meets a road carrying less than 6000/3000 vehicles
per day.
On-site turning must allow a 3 point turn to AS 2890.”
E.6.7.4 P1
On-Site Turning
Proposed new (e)
GCC
Suggests an additional sub-clause:
“(e) Suitability of the location of the access point and the traffic
volumes on the adjacent road”.
Agree.
Adopt suggested words or similar.
E.6.7.5 A1
Layout of Parking Areas
GCC
As drafted, the acceptable solution does not allow for tandem
spaces. Consider whether to include provision for these in the
acceptable solution or simply leave to performance criteria. It
may be that the single and multiple dwelling codes may make
adequate provision in respect of non-commercial situations.
Suggest redraft to:
“The layout of car parking spaces, access aisles, circulation
roadways and ramps must be designed and constructed to
comply with:
(a)
Section 2 “Design of Parking Modules, Circulation
Roadways and Ramps” and
(b)
Section 5 “Additional requirements for car parking
structures
of AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 Parking Facilities Part 1: Off-street car
parking.”
Agree????
E.6.7.5 P2
Layout of Parking Areas
GCC
This clause has been so modified from the originally drafted
version as to be ineffectual. All reference to signposting and
line marking has been omitted. Suggest:
Not agree.
This level of detail no needed in planning schemes.
Would require a developer to provide this level of detail
148
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
“Parking areas and circulation areas including pedestrian
pathways must be signposted and line marked to the extent
necessary to enable safe, easy and efficient use.”
By inserting the words “to the extent necessary”, it is possible
to dispense with the requirement but at least the performance
criteria still points to signposting and line marking specifically.
at the DA stage.
Assume it is allowable for planning authorities to
condition this detail without specifying it in planning
schemes.
E.6.7.6
Design of Accessible Parking
for People with a Disability
TPC
Direction to delete.
This is a BCA matter.
Agree.
E.6.7.6
Design of Accessible Parking
for People with a Disability
CCC
Suggest delete.
This is a BCA matter.
Agree.
E.6.7.6 P1
Design of Accessible Parking
for People with a Disability
GCC
Suggest rewrite opening sentence to:
“The design, location and construction of accessible car
parking spaces for people with a disability Must be located,
design and constructed to enable safe, easy and efficient use
and must satisfy all of the following: …”
Not agree.
This matter is not to be specified in planning schemes.
See above comments.
E.6.7.7
Surface Treatment of Parking
Areas.
GCC
Should we be encouraging permeable pavements to recharge
the watertable and if so, does this standard actually achieve
the opposite?
Comments noted.
Question is a technical one: can a ‘durable all weather
seal’ also be permeable?
If not, then probably not possible to create an AS for
this clause.
Change standard to refer to ‘durable all weather
pavement’ instead of “durable all weather seal”
E.6.7.7 A1 (a)
Surface Treatment of Parking
Areas.
CCC
AS requires all parking areas to be paved with all weather seal,
unless the road providing access to the property is unsealed.
Question: what if it is in a rural area / on a farm?
We just need a way of conditioning the acceptable solutions
here - how can this be done?
Acknowledge problem.
Only way it can be done appears to be by providing a
different AS for rural property circumstance.
E.6.7.7 A1 (a)
GCC
AS requires all parking areas to be paved with all weather seal,
GCC council policy position is noted.
149
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Surface Treatment of Parking
Areas.
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
unless the road providing access to the property is unsealed.
This qualification should be deleted; it is quite conceivable that
a car park accessed off an unsealed road requires sealing
because of dust impacts on adjoining properties.
This sentence “unless the road providing access to the
property is unsealed” should be optional - to allow for
individual Council policy.
E.6.7.7 P1
Surface Treatment of Parking
Areas.
Consideration of heritage
values
GCC
Need to be able to consider heritage considerations
Not agree.
Heritage values in the streetscape that Council wishes
to recognise and protect should be done so with a
heritage precinct in the heritage code.
E.6.7.8 A1 and P1
Lighting of Parking Areas
GCC
Reference to ‘parking areas’ in objective and standard:
Should change to:
“parking modules, access driveways, circulation roadways and
pedestrian paths” (For consistency with previous standard and
AS2890.
Alternatively set up a definition of “parking areas” to mean the
same.
Agree.
Create definition.
This will include areas for ‘circulation’ as well as
‘parking’.
E.6.7.8 A1 and P1
Lighting of Parking Areas
CCC
Suggest add to start of both AS and PC:
“For uses that will be open outside daylight hours …”
Agree.
Add suggested words or similar.
Where parking areas will not be used at night, it is not
reasonable to requiring lighting.
E.6.7.8 P1
Lighting of Parking Areas
CCC
Suggest add a new sub clause:
“(e)
Is appropriate to the hours of operation of the use.”
Agree.
E.6.7.8 P1 (d)
Lighting of Parking Areas
GCC
“(d)
prevents unreasonable impact on the amenity of
adjoining users through light overspill”
Suggest that these clauses require better definition.
Not agree.
E.6.7.9
Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design.
CCC
Suggest delete standard.
Explanation.
CPTED concepts are difficult for which to write
Performance Criteria and extremely difficult to write
Acceptable Solutions. Every situation is different.
150
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
This was more easily dealt with as a ‘general
consideration’ under previous schemes.
The Regional Project would welcome any suggestions
for alternative wording.
E.6.7.9
Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design.
TPC
These considerations may be more appropriately incorporated
in other standards that have the same objective.
AS difficult to measure/quantify. AS and PC are not well
differentiated.
Delete standard or remove either AS or PC.
Explanation.
CPTED concepts are difficult for which to write
Performance Criteria and extremely difficult to write
Acceptable Solutions. Every situation is different.
This was more easily dealt with as a ‘general
consideration’ under previous schemes.
The Regional Project would welcome any suggestions
for alternative wording.
E.6.7.9
Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design.
GCC
Reference to ‘parking areas’ in objective and standard:
Should change to:
“parking modules, access driveways, circulation roadways and
pedestrian paths” (For consistency with previous standard and
AS2890.
Alternatively set up a definition of “parking areas” to mean the
same.
Agree.
Create definition.
This will include areas for ‘circulation’ as well as
‘parking’.
E.6.7.9 A1 (a)
Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design.
GCC
Suggest rewrite as:
(a)
parking areas must be designed and located to ensure
passive surveillance from habitable room windows of the
development;
Agree
E.6.7.9 A1
Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design.
HCC
The AS are not clear enough to be AS.
This is clearly the problem with trying to construct AS’s in
accordance with the first principle of PAN 13. The alternative of
no AS’s, however, would render every development or change
of use requiring (additional) car parking discretionary.
Agree.
Providing for CPTED principles within explicitly
standards in a planning scheme is very challenging.
E.6.7.9 P1
Crime Prevention Through
HCC
Difficulty in writing PCs for CPTED.
These PC’s need to recognise that not every situation will
Agree.
Providing for CPTED principles within explicitly
151
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Environmental Design.
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
involve substantial redevelopments /works.
[One option to address CPTED would seem to be either
specific provisions being introduced into Part C Section 9 of
the template to seek to more flexibility in terms of the
application of CPTED principles. This would avoid the need for
their repetition in a range of development standards contained
in relevant Zone provisions or Codes. They need to be
presented in this sort of form….‘having regard to the capacity
of the proposal and the site to be able to incorporate CPTED
principles’ whether in Part C Section 9 or as part of a wider
design element in the every relevant set of Zone provisions or
Code .
standards in a planning scheme is very challenging.
Suggestion of a general consideration in Part 9 of the
scheme is worth considering as an alternative.
E.6.7.10
Landscaping of Parking Areas.
TPC
AS seems overly prescriptive particularly as the scope applies
to all “parking and circulation areas” (except PD4 residential).
Explanation:
The AS is very prescriptive in order to meet the
requirement for Acceptable Solutions to be clear and
inarguable about what is required to comply with them.
Having said that, the Regional Project would welcome
any suggestions for alternative wording.
Reduce standard to a very simplistic form and rely
on planning authorities ability to condition the
detail.
E.6.7.10
Landscaping of Parking Areas.
GCC
Tension between car parking provision and landscaping which
might reduce that car parking provision.
Noted.
But must provide the number of parking spaces
required, even if means running through PC re:
landscaping…?
E.6.7.10
Landscaping of Parking Areas.
GCC
Consider a phase-in point for this requirement? 10? 20? car
parking spaces? i.e. Where # or more car parking spaces are
required …. If so amend both the acceptable solution and
performance criteria accordingly.
Also: should refer to outdoor parking and circulation areas.
Agree.
Set threshold at (draft) level of more than 5 cars.
E.6.7.11 P1
Design of Motor Cycle Parking
CCC
Suggest no PC.
The AS relies on compliance with Australian Standards.
Agree ????
152
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Areas
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Councils should not (cannot) allow these to be reduced.
E.6.7.11 P1 (a)
Design of Motor Cycle Parking
Areas
GCC
Suggest delete P1(a)
This requirement is unnecessary for motorcycle parking and
should be deleted.
Agree.
E.6.7.12
Design of Bicycle Parking
Facilities
GCC
The standard is silent on end of trip facilities e.g. change areas
and showers.
Explanation:
These are specified in Table E6.2.
Needs to reference this.
E.6.7.12 A1
Design of Bicycle Parking
Facilities
TPC
Redraft A1 to reference Table E.6.2 Classification of Bicycle
Parking Facilities.
Agree
E.6.7.12 A1
Design of Bicycle Parking
Facilities
TPC
A1 is not necessary to implement the corresponding objective,
seems overly prescriptive, and difficult to demonstrate and also
enforce.
Redraft to provide for concise requirement.
Agree.
Redraft.
E.6.7.12 A1 (b) and P1 (b)
Design of Bicycle Parking
Facilities
GCC
Minimising distance to bicycle parking facility.
Question the necessity of these two requirements
Agree
Delete.
E.6.7.13
Siting of Car Parking
GCC
Clarify whether this applies only to residential areas or to all
areas.
Agree.
Should apply in residential areas.
E.6.7.13
Siting of Car Parking
TPC
Development standards relating to the siting of parking spaces
and vehicle turning areas in E.6.7.13 Siting of Car Parking
require review to only apply in urban zones, not lowdensity/rural areas.
Agree.
E.6.7.13
Siting of Car Parking
HCC
Comment - S7.5.2 of the draft CHPS 2009 sought to identify
the exceptions to this to try to reduce (avoidable) discretion in
recognition that sites will often not be ‘vacant’. This shifts them
to PC status.
Agree.
E.6.7.13
TPC
Conflict with setback for outbuildings 16.4.4 A1 (c) in Village
Zone.
Agree.
Concord the two provisions / create standard wording
153
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Siting of Car Parking
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Unclear how standard should be applied in Recreation and
Open Space zones.
for this concept.
Include clarification if no building exists (as may be the
case in Recreation and Open Space zones)
E.6.7.13
Siting of Car Parking
GCC
Definition required for ‘building line’
Agree – in part.
Refer to ‘setback from frontage of the existing
dwelling’, or similar.
This accords with the approach in the new PD for
Residential Development (Standard 3 A1(c))
E.6.7.14
Off Street Commercial Vehicle
Facilities
GCC
Suggest new name:
“Facilities for Commercial Vehicles”
Agree
E.6.7.14
Off Street Commercial Vehicle
Facilities
GCC
How do we know when to apply this standard? E.g. it should
not apply to residential use, but there is nothing that says that
(exemption of the code only applies to residential use in
General Res zone?
Not all use or development requires these facilities. There is a
need to specify the kinds of use or development requiring such
servicing. See originally drafted standard.
The originally drafted standard specified the relevant Australian
standard.
“commercial vehicle facilities” is undefined and does not
specify the required features.”
Review original draft
Possibly combine with E.6.7.2 to create a code that
covers both parking areas and the access.
Create AS identical to E.6.7.2 A1 (b) (which refers to
Aust. Std)
Location of Tables
GCC
Suggest that the parking table be split back into the separate
tables for car parking, motorcycle, bicycle, etc, and that they be
located within the code – each immediately following the
standard they each relate.
Investigate.
May be that the CMS provides flexibility for both
options at the same time.
Numerous Performance
Criteria
TPC
Numerous Performance Criteria
e.g. E.6.7.14 Off Street Commercial Vehicle Facilities – P1:
“Commercial vehicle facilities may not be provided on-site if the
frequency and scale of inward and outward deliveries is of a
level such that the safety and convenience of road users and
Agree.
154
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
pedestrians would not be compromised by the lack of an off
street servicing facility”
Drafting is lengthy, and repetitive of AS.
Avoid use of “may not”, and ‘passive’ expression.
Redraft to provide clear and concise criteria for assessment.
Parking Table
CCC
Suggested amendments to table.
Agree.
Various typos, minor
amendments
HCC
Various typos and minor amendments noted by HCC
Agree.
Amend.
Purpose
HCC
“Ensure that land is provided with infrastructure that is
appropriate for future use and development” has been
removed from the previous version. How will Council’s ensure
that developments are adequately and appropriately serviced
without such provisions? The infrastructure itself is important
as well as the connections to public systems.
Explanation.
Discussion needed.
Resolution of this issue is subject to fundamental
agreement on role of planning schemes with regard to
provision of infrastructure.
Hypothesis:
It is not for planning schemes to regulate the technical
aspects of connections to water, sewer, electricity, etc.
These service connection technicalities are regulated
by other legislation / other authorities.
Intent is to provide clarity that the planning scheme
does not purport to ‘manage’ this issue, but in
consideration of a development application, it simply
wants to ‘know’ that a particular infrastructure
connection will be provided.
Stormwater is an exception, as this is dealt with by
Councils and it appears more detailed headpower
within planning schemes is required.
The phrase in the previous version was a reference to
subdivision. Service connections for subdivision are
now dealt with in zones.
E.7.0 Infrastructure Code
155
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Until resolved, retain code scope as is.
Removal of subdivision and
development sections from
previous version
HCC
Section E.7.7.3 has suffered from the removal of subdivision
and development sections and lacks clarity. There are too
many concepts in each section, and some parts contradict
others.
Explanation:
Infrastructure connections for subdivision are in the
zone provisions.
(Not sure exactly what is meant be ‘too many concepts
and some parts contradict others’ … ?)
Splitting of stormwater
provisions
HCC
Suggest splitting stormwater issues into disposal, treatment;
and capacity.
Possibly.
WSUD
HCC
Many WSUD features will require on-going maintenance and
monitoring to maintain performance. How is it envisaged that
this will occur? Part 5 Agreements may be suitable where only
one landowner is affected and responsibility is clear, but
probably won’t work for land with multiple owners. WSUD
features on public land could technically be maintained by
Councils, but this probably isn’t feasible in the long-term from a
resourcing perspective.
Agree.
Alter provisions so the Council (not the planning
authority) has a role in deciding if WSUD for a
particular development is desirable – especially on
public land where Council would have to maintain into
the future.
E.7.1 Purpose Statements
TPC
E.7.1 Purpose Statements
(a)
ensure that infrastructure connections provided to use
and development accords with appropriate standards;
(b)
provide a statutory basis for the technical specification of
those standards where not imposed by other legislation
or regulation;
(a) - what is an ‘appropriate’ standard? Is it as per
requirements of the relevant authority?
(b) - does not provide statement against which to make
decision and context on which to base the code standards.
Redraft.
Agree.
E.7.2.1 (a)
Application
HCC
This code contains provisions in relation to things other than
service connections (e.g. stormwater management).
Agree.
Amend purpose statement to reference stormwater
management.
156
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
E.7.2.1 (a)
Application
TPC
E.7.2 Application
E.7.2.1 (a) infrastructure connections provided to new,
replacement, alteration, addition or intensification of use or
development on existing lots or to new lots in a subdivision,
where new or upgraded infrastructure connections are
proposed or required by a provision of this planning scheme;
Inconsistencies with General Exemptions 5.3 Minor
Telecommunications, 5.4 Maintenance and Repair of Linear
and Minor Utilities and Infrastructure and Limited Exemptions
6.2 Provision and Upgrades of Linea and Minor Utilities and
Infrastructure.
Redraft.
Agree.
E.7.7.1, E.7.7.2, E.7.7.4,
E.7.7.5 and E.7.7.6
TPC
The Advisory Committee suggests a review of the
Infrastructure Code, including consideration of the deletion of
clauses E.7.7.1, E.7.7.2, E.7.7.4, E.7.7.5 and E.7.7.6 and
reviewing the scope of clause E.7.7.3. This may result in the
Code’s scope being reduced to stormwater drainage and
disposal only, and therefore require review of the Code’s
purpose, application, definitions and terms and application
requirements.
Agree.
Resolution of this issue is subject to fundamental
agreement on role of planning schemes with regard to
provision of infrastructure.
Hypothesis:
It is not for planning schemes to regulate the technical
aspects of connections to water, sewer, electricity, etc.
These service connection technicalities are regulated
by other legislation / other authorities.
Intent is to provide clarity that the planning scheme
does not purport to ‘manage’ this issue, but in
consideration of a development application, it simply
wants to ‘know’ that a particular infrastructure
connection will be provided.
Stormwater is an exception, as this is dealt with by
Councils and it appears more detailed headpower
within planning schemes is required.
The phrase in the previous version was a reference to
subdivision. Service connections for subdivision are
now dealt with in zones.
157
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Until resolved, retain code scope as is.
E.7.7.3 A1 (c)
TPC
E.7.7.3 A1 (c) – is unable to stand alone as one solution to A1,
will likely require another management system to deal with
overflow of stormwater collected on site.
Redraft A1 to clarify options.
Agree.
Will attempt re-draft.
E.7.7.4
Access in Infrastructure Code.
TPC
Drafting does not explain what is required – ‘…in accordance
with the requirements of the road authority’
Clarification:
Intent is to provide clarity that the planning scheme
does not purport to ‘manage’ this issue, but in
consideration of a development application it simply
wants to ‘know’ that access will be provided.
The road authority operates under separate legislation
and applies requirements that are not necessary for
LUPAA applications to deal with.
TPC Committee advise that planning schemes do not need to
include specific provisions regulating the process of
undertaking a development. Conditions relating to this can be
applied to permits simply on the basis that such conditions are
a reasonable planning matter.
(Noting that conditions applying to the nature of the use and
development should be derived from specific planning scheme
provisions).
Consideration be given to deleting this code.
Accepting the TPC Committee’s opinion, one problem
with not having this code is that the issue of
construction management will be dealt with by councils
in different ways. There will be no consistent approach
nor a basis upon which to develop a consistent
approach.
For April public consultation process: Retain code but
delete hours of work standard and set thresholds in
E.8.0 Construction Management Code
Need for code.
TPC
158
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Table E8.1
Potentially onerous
requirement that all
development will require a
construction management
plan.
TPC
Various typos, minor
amendments
HCC
Various typos and minor amendments noted by HCC
Agree.
Amend.
E.8.7.1 P1
Construction works impact on
amenity
HCC
This replicates an existing requirement under EMPCA and is
therefore redundant. The PC is also strangely worded and
would be difficult to apply. How would a planning authority be
able to determine in advance whether or not ‘environmental
harm’ would be caused? Measurements could only be taken
while construction is occurring (not prior), and levels at the
property boundary will not determine whether ‘environmental
harm’ is occurring as the receptors could either be very close
or very far from the property boundary. It would be far better to
specify a maximum sound pressure level (and potentially other
sound characteristics) or a maximum increase above ambient
levels. Alternatively, it could specify that work outside of
normal hours can only be carried out where the ambient noise
levels at the source/receptor property boundary or does not
increase above ambient levels.
Agree.
The purpose of the provision was to provide Councils
with a head-power to apply conditions pertaining to the
construction phase of a development.
Advice from the TPC is that this is not needed as
Councils have authority to apply such conditions.
Delete this from the code.
The proposed Construction Management Code is considered
to be potentially onerous, applying broadly to all development
requiring a permit.
The Advisory Committee is concerned about the wide
applicability of the Construction Management Code as it
captures all development requiring a permit (no exemptions).
159
Agree.
If this code is retained:
Consideration to be given to exempting works of a
relatively minor nature, such as works involving
2
disturbance of soil less than 500 m .
For April public consultation process: Retain code but
delete hours of work standard and set thresholds in
Table E8.1
Noted that this issue may be eventually dealt with
under the Building Code of Australia.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
E.9.0 Attenuation Code
Various typos, minor
amendments
HCC
Various typos and minor amendments noted by HCC
Agree.
Amend.
Use of attenuation distances:impact on status of nearby
residential use (and other
sensitive use).
GCC
In Glenorchy residential use is located in close proximity to
industrial use. Currently this is managed by placing the
responsibility for avoiding impact on sensitive (e.g. residential)
uses with the industrial use. This is done through planning
permit conditions and through EMPCA.
The code would provide attenuation distances for many
industrial uses, a number of issues arise:
The attenuation distances extent beyond property boundaries;
Existing sensitive uses within attenuation distances would
become discretionary, this would potentially effect hundreds of
properties and can’t be supported.
Council has no ability to identify each existing use that would
create an attenuation distance.
Explanation:
One rationale behind the code is to prevent industries
from being forced to expend large sums of money on
mitigation of emissions – or to close down or relocate –
due to proximity of residential use and the supremacy
placed on residential amenity over and above all other
consideration in all situations by the EMPCA Act. If
planning schemes do not seek to address this issue, it
remains a real threat.
It is intended that the attenuation distances in the table
only ‘activate’ where there is no Attenuation Area
shown as an overlay on the planning scheme maps. It
is suggested that GCC include an Attenuation Area
overlay around its industrial zone areas, at a
reasonable distance taking all matters into account,
especially where the long term local strategy is to
retain the industrial zoning.
Apply code only to rural situations – not to ‘zoned
area”?
Where are attenuation
distances measured from?
GCC
It is unclear where attenuation distances are measured from
(the premises, property boundaries or other).
The definition needs to include the location from where
attenuation distances are measured. Some industries may
have large sites and restrict their operations to a part of the site
to allow for attenuation within their property boundaries (e.g.
Agree.
Needs to be clarified.
Propose to specify that it is from the ‘site’, a Templatedefined term that aligns it with title boundaries.
(This will not work in rural areas, however, where the
160
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Nyrstar) Other industries may have development and/or use up
to their property boundaries and attenuation distances would
potentially impact on adjacent or nearby properties. It also
needs to specifically identify that ancillary not listed activities
may be allowed in the attenuation distance. (For example a
car park for the employees of the listed activity could be
located within the attenuation distance) Alternatively this may
be addressed by including a definition for ‘listed activity'.
‘site’ might be 100 hectares, yet the industrial use
might be confined to a minute fraction of that. In rural
areas, therefore, it is important to show an Attenuation
Area on the plans instead.)
Utilise wording of the draft TPC code.
Relationship to Level 2
Activities.
GCC
The Code does not provide for level 2 activities as they are
provided for under EMPCA. This would result in a scenario
where a Level 1 activity would place an attenuation distance
over other properties, but a Level 2 activity would not!
Not agree.
The code is in two halves. One dealing with new uses
that should be attenuated, the other dealing with new
sensitive uses in proximity to such uses.
The code does not provide for environmental
assessment of Level 2 Activities, as this is not
controlled by local government planning schemes.
The code does provide for assessment of sensitive
uses (dwellings) in close proximity to both Level 1 and
Level 2 Activities.
New industrial use creates a
de facto scheme amendment.
GCC
Any new industrial activity that requires an attenuation distance
outside of its property could potentially change the use status
on other properties. Such a change should be a planning
scheme amendment, not a development application.
Explanation:
It is true that a new industrial activity that requires an
attenuation distance outside of its property could
potentially change the use status of sensitive use on
other properties in adjacent zones in which sensitive
use is otherwise permitted. The instances of this will be
small provided that planning schemes buffer existing
industrial zoned area with an appropriate Attenuation
Area overlay.
Note that there is a potential clash with PD4 on this
issue.
In Rural Resource areas where new sensitive use is
discretionary and subservient to the ‘resource
development’ nature of the zone.
161
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Use of phrase ‘set back’
HVC
GCC
Reconsider the use of the term ‘set back’ to describe
separation as whilst intentionally different to the term ‘setback’
it may be confused.
HVC proposed alternative terms could be ‘sited’, ‘separated’
‘situated’ or ‘positioned’.
GCC propose alternative term could be ‘located’.
Agree.
Use a different term.
‘separation distance’ – as used in rural zones.
E.9.2.1 (a) and (b)
Application
GCC
Suggest: instead of “development for use” it should be
“development or use” in both these sub clauses.
What about a new use or intensification of a use, without
development? If the development involves a specified use,
irrespective of whether or not development is involved, the
code should apply
Agree.
Amend.
E.9.2.1 (b)
Sensitive use
GCC
Not all subdivisions will be able to specify whether or not the
future use will be for a sensitive use. For example a hospital or
a school or a caravan park can occur in zones that will also
cater for non sensitive uses. (by the way, is an office, or
another workplace that involves non sensitive uses a ‘sensitive
use’, under the PS definition when employees are in that
workspace for extended periods eg about 8 hours per day?
Not agree.
Retain wording to relate only to ‘sensitive use’.
(The issues raised in the comment may lead to
consideration of a change to the definition of ‘sensitive
use’, however this is a matter for the TPC).
E.9.2.1 (c) (ii)
Sensitive use
GCC
We should never have to rely on this clause/the clause should
be deleted, because there is no way that a person would know
where approved activities are, unless they are mapped (see
next comment)
????
Ideally, all or most will be mapped.
However, planning authority should be aware of those
that are not mapped.
Should code not apply to ‘zoned areas’
E.9.3.1
Definition of Terms
HCC
Definition of site specific study:
Need to be careful with this definition as under s.74 of EMPCA
the authority, not the proponent, is responsible for carrying out
the assessment (based on a ‘case’ provided by the proponent).
S.74 also requires public consultation before finalisation of the
assessment.
Agree.
Need to amend.
E.9.4
CCAA
This is a precedent, where quite rightly Level 2 activities are
Not agree.
162
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Exemptions
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
exempt from the code.
In this code however, where a new sensitive use or
development is considered, the separation distance is to the
potentially incompatible use. Where a use listed in E12.6.2 and
E12.6.3 is considered the separation distance is from the zone
boundary where the primary purpose of the zone is sensitive
use.
The CCAA believes that this should be consistent and that the
attenuation buffer should be considered from the boundary of
the activity. For quarries, this boundary would be the mining
lease boundary or an operational area defined within a mining
lease boundary that is registered on the mining lease plan.
Where there is an existing activity there should be a
buffer drawn on the planning scheme overlay map.
Where a buffer is shown on a planning scheme overlay
may, the map over-rides the separation distance given
in the table - which should be thought of as the default
distance in the event a buffer is not shown on the map
overlay.
Planning authorities and operators of the activities
should liaise during the drafting of the planning
scheme to ensure the map overlay buffers are drawn
an appropriately.
E.9.4 (i)
Exemptions
GCC
Why do you need to say this, if it is not listed in this table, the
code does not apply pursuant to E 9.2.1
Agree
Delete.
E.9.4.1(a)(iii)
TPC
GCC
E.9.4.1(a)(iii) Attenuation Code exemption for:
for activities requiring assessment by the Tasmanian Planning
Commission under the State Policies and Projects Act 1993.
Repetitious of requirements of Act (also incorrect title 1993 not
1999)
Does this mean a project of state significance under Part 3?
These are lifted out of the planning scheme (see section 19 of
Act) and therefore this provision is redundant and should be
deleted.
Agree.
Delete.
E.9.4.1 (b)
(Proposed new additional sub
clauses)
GCC
Suggest change (ii) to:
“(ii) Additions and alterations for an existing building used for
sensitive (no size increase limit)”
or
Suggest add to sub clause (ii) as follows:
“additions or alterations to an existing building used for
sensitive use provided that the footprint does not increase by
more than 50% or 100m2 as exists at the time of the planning
Agree
Adopt first option. ???????
163
But keeping would aloe conditions to be applied to the
extension – e.g. noise attenuation measures.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
scheme coming into effect, whichever is the greater”
9.5
Application requirements.
GCC
Suggest replace ‘site specific study’ with ‘report from a suitably
qualified person’.
Not agree.
9.6.1
Development for Use with
Potential to Cause
Environmental Harm
GCC
Do we need a separate standard for use? That is, not all
activities would require development (e.g. change of use of an
existing structure or a use may not require any development at
all or it may be an intensification of a use in an existing
structure
Agree.
9.6.1 A1 (b)
Set back from a zone for
sensitive use.
GCC
Which zones are they? Unless we specify these zones, it is
likely that they will be disputed.
Agree.
Need to define “a zone where the primary purpose is
sensitive use” in 4.1.3. (Use shorter term).
9.6.1 A1 (b)
Set back from a zone for
sensitive use.
GCC
Furthermore, zone boundaries run to the centre of roads, given
that the impact should be considered to land that can be
developed, should the distance be to title boundaries? (We
may also need to consider what happens if a property has split
zoning).
Suggest: rewrite (b) as follows:
“(b)‘title boundaries to titles where sensitive uses are a
permissible use, or
(c) title boundaries to properties with an existing sensitive use”
Agree.
Need to specify it is from lot boundary of land zoned
for sensitive use (alternatively; state that roads are
excluded).
Adopt suggested wording, or similar.
9.6.1 A1 (b)
Set back from a zone for
sensitive use.
GCC
Given that sensitive uses can occur on zones where sensitive
uses are not the primary purpose, how will we protect those
uses?
Explanation.
By sub clause 9.6.1 A1 (a)
9.6.1 A1 (b)
Set back from a zone for
sensitive use.
GCC
GCC has a significant amount of existing non conforming uses,
how are they protected?
Explanation:
Draw attenuation areas on the map overlay at a
distance the planning authority considers appropriate.
It is intended to make clear that the distances in the
table are over-ridden by an attenuation area on the
planning scheme maps.
Code should apply to areas around industrial-
164
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
zoned areas only if an attenuation area is shown
on the planning scheme maps? The existence of
the industrial zone is known, and its position w.r.t.
any adjoining residential zone is know. A strategic
decision has been made to zone these areas as
such. Note that the setback-from residential zones
provisions in industrial zone apply.
Table E.9.1
HCC
The vagueness of the ‘activity’ and ‘sub-category’ columns will
make application difficult in some cases (e.g. what is a ‘very
large’ waste transfer station)?
Issue too of information / requirements and assessment
criteria. Guidance /expertise for administering this table and
the related question of invoking the requirement for a site
specific study.
Explanation:
Attenuation distances are taken from Standard
Recommended Attenuation Distances (SRADs)
produced by the EPA.
Table E.9.1
CHC
Councillors question some of the distances. Are these all taken
straight from EMPCA? Can Council make them higher? Also,
raised the issue of not knowing where lots of quarries and
former tips and the like are.
Explanation:
Attenuation distances are taken from Standard
Recommended Attenuation Distances (SRADs)
produced by the EPA.
A Council can make larger by drawing an Attenuation
Area on a planning scheme map overlay for any
particular sites. The distances in the Table only apply
where there is no overlay drawn.
The issue of unknown location of former sites is a real
problem. Councils can only do what they can to identify
such sites on the overlay.
Note that the State is expected to produce a Potentially
Contaminated Land Code. This would be more
applicable to former tip sites. However, the same issue
of unknown sites would still exist.
Table E.9.1
‘concrete or stone articles’
HVC
Consider clarifying / expanding the term activity in table E.9.1
described as “Concrete or stone articles”
For discussion with EPA.
Table E.9.1
HVC
Consider expanding the relevant circumstances to consider
For discussion with EPA.
165
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
‘sandblasting’
Table E.9.1
A scale limit on application of
code.
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
‘sandblasting’ such as scale or purpose (i.e., sandblasting at a
Marina versus sandblasting in a domestic situation)
HVC
Consider including the scale of listed activities in table E.9.1
particularly for quarrying, metal fabrication, feedlot & holding
yard, ‘dairy products’ to avoid over the top (albeit technically
correct) application
For discussion with EPA.
E.10.0 Biodiversity Codes – General Comments (across the two drafts)
Consolidation of the two draft
biodiversity codes into one.
TPC
The Regional Model Planning Scheme proposes two Codes:
E.10.0 Biodiversity Code (Minimal Version – Overlay) and
E.10.0 Biodiversity Code (Textual application, with offsets).
Both Codes aim to address the issue of biodiversity; however,
planning authorities can decide which Code to apply in their
respective draft interim planning scheme.
The two codes are fundamentally different in their approaches.
For example the Minimal Version – Overlay does not consider
offsets or the ‘avoid, minimise, mitigate, offset’ hierarchy of
actions. Further, clauses E.10.2 Application of Code and
E.10.4 Development Exempt from Code differ substantially
between the two codes.
In addition, the Minimal Version – Overlay version may be
inconsistently applied between municipal areas through
opportunity for planning authorities to select which zones are
exempt from the Code.
The two Biodiversity Codes should be reviewed, with the
preference to providing only one Code to apply across the
Region which
•
Delivers a consistent policy direction;
•
May include local requirements, articulated as local
provisions;
•
Adopts one approach of application across the region,
i.e. confirms overlay or textual approach.
166
The Regional Project will attempt to converge the two
codes into one ode – with significant options available
for Council to choose.
No State policy direction exists regarding what local
government must specifically do in this area. Individual
Council policy – a reflection of their local community’s
priorities – will therefore rightly be dominant in
determining the option choices of individual Council
codes.
As noted by the TPC, the Minimal Version - Overlay
does not include the off-set mechanism. This is
because avoidance of significant impacts on significant
environmental values should be arranged first and
foremost through the spatial allocation of zones in the
construction of planning schemes. In other words: in
spatial strategic planning. The level of regulation of
biodiversity values on a particular parcel of land should
be a strategic planning decision made transparently
during the construction of the planning scheme and
should not be deferred into the development
application process.
Offsetting is the ‘last resort’ mechanism and should
only be used in those planning schemes where the
spatial allocation of zones has left significant potential
for significant impacts on high biodiversity value areas.
It is noted that the biodiversity code, like the remainder
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
of the planning scheme, must provide a substantial
level of certainty in order to meet a key objective of the
planning reform agenda and the underlying philosophy
of the new Template.
It is further noted that a range of practical and legal
issues exist for the use of off-sets by local government
that will need to be resolved by those Councils
considering including this mechanism in their planning
schemes. It is not within the scope of remaining
Regional Planning Project resources to resolve these.
Term: ‘native vegetation’
General Policy Approach
CHC
Regional
Project
Unhappy with the use of the words “native vegetation” for a few
reasons. Firstly, because of the current use of the term by
“greenies” in the forestry debate. Secondly, as they feel it can’t
be defined in a manner that provided consistency or certainty.
Thirdly, it is considered problematic due to examples such as
where long-term farmland isn’t farmed for a few years and
native regrowth occurs, would this then be considered as
“native vegetation” rather than farmland?
The objectives of the Resource Management and Planning
System are very broad, very high level statements that can be
used to justify support or opposition to almost any development
proposal.
The RMPS was designed with the intention that there would be
a comprehensive suit of State Planning Policies that define
what the RMPS objectives mean with regard to particular
issues.
So far, since the RMPS was introduced in 1993 we have only
167
This term now defined by TPC.
The TPC Model Scheme Committee has now defined
the term ‘native vegetation’, as follows:
“means plants that are indigenous to Tasmania
including trees, shrubs, herbs and grasses that have not
been planted for domestic or commercial purposes.”
Regrowth of native vegetation on farmland would
therefore be considered ‘native vegetation’. It is
important, therefore, that the code is very explicit in
terms of where and what it applies to. It is also
important that it is clear that only native vegetation with
high biodiversity values is subject to the code. Finally,
the code should apply through an overlay – and it is
the Council’s role to determine the extent of overlay.
The policy approach that the Regional Project
encourages the region to acknowledge is as follows:
• First-level biodiversity conservation in the region is
provided by the State, through its extensive system
of reserves, national parks, conservation areas,
etc. (Tasmania is one of the most conserved
jurisdictions in he world).
• Second-level biodiversity conservation in the region
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
done this successfully with one issue – agricultural land.
The system remain directionless on all other issues, including
what it should be doing with respect to biodiversity
conservation.
Regional Project Response
is provided by the State, through forest regulation
system and the EMPCA Level 2 Activity system. All
large scale clearing of native vegetation, whether
for forestry, agriculture, urban expansion (i.e.
subdivision) or substantive mining/quarrying
projects fall under one of these two systems in
which the State’s Threaten Species Act and Nature
Conservation Act play a major role, and active
triggers exist for the Federal Government’s EPBC
Act.
• Third-level biodiversity conservation in the region
should be provided through strategic land use
planning by planning authorities and subsequent
construction of planning schemes. This should
ensure that any remaining areas of high
biodiversity significance no covered by the above
two levels, or other areas of lesser biodiversity
significance that the local community nevertheless
deem to be locally important, are not zone for
urban development.
• Forth-level biodiversity conservation in the region
should be provided through the operation of
planning schemes. This should ensure that impacts
on any residual high biodiversity values not
covered by the above three levels, or other areas of
lesser biodiversity significance that the local
community nevertheless deem to be locally
important, are managed appropriately. This may
include the use of off-sets.
• The recognition of what is valued by a community
168
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
sufficiently to warrant reduction in citizens’ private
rights can only be done by the elected
representatives of the people, (whilst we remain a
democracy). Therefore, the determination of local
biodiversity values warranting protection must be
made by local Councils.
General coverage of code
CHC
Greater veg clearing exemptions for farmers needed.
Agree.
The Biodiversity Code should only impact native
vegetation with high biodiversity values that the
Council has determined has significance to its
community.
Note that the vast majority of high biodiversity value
native vegetations separately protected by
Commonwealth and State laws.
Use of off-sets
GCC
Biodiversity is provided for under other legislation;
There is a perceived need that that legislation does not
adequately provide for biodiversity and that the planning
system should fill this gap.
There is a choice of two codes proposed, one provides for offsets, the other does not.
Given that offsets can potentially provide a ‘way forward’ for
applications that would otherwise perhaps be irreconcilable, by
allowing a development to proceed and at the same time
ensuring that environmental impact is offset, the concept of
offsets is supported.
Current advice is that offsets can only be applied within the
municipal boundary; this may limit the extent to which it can be
applied in Glenorchy.
Explanation:
Offsets organised by local government through their
planning schemes can not satisfy the need for offsets
generated by State or Commonwealth laws unless
through a ‘happy coincidence’. It is not true, therefore
that a planning scheme needs to provide for offsets to
allow for clearing of vegetation that would otherwise
not be allowed by State or Commonwealth laws.
The only vegetation clearance that a planning scheme
offset mechanism is needed to allow for is vegetation
that is protected by the planning scheme only. (i.e. not
by State or Commonwealth laws as well).
Therefore, it is up to the Planning Authority to
determine if there is native vegetation in its planning
area, not protected by higher levels of government,
which it deems necessary to protect and for which it
would only allow clearance if an offset were provided
to compensate.
169
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
However, such a decision goes beyond Councils
acting as Planning Authorities under LUPAA and goes
to Councils acting as Councils under the Local
Government Act. A decision to implement a system of
offsets has significant consequences for the resources
of Councils and a policy decision needs to be made in
which the overall (i.e. not just planning) pros and cons
are weighed.
Not the least matter for consideration will be the need
for consideration economic impact (as recommended
by the Productivity Commission in 2004) on both
economic development and on Council resources.
Finally, any offsets policy implanted by a Council
should be strategically based. The ‘scatter gun’
approach to obtaining offsets is increasingly
recognised as having too high an impact on economic
development whilst producing highly questionable
environmental outcomes.
Need for one code only – with
options.
KC
Should only be one Biodiversity Code with local variations to
determine if applied via overlay, textural application,
with/without offsets etc.
Agree.
Exclusion of certain zones
KC
Should be able to exclude some zones whether applying the
code via an overlay or through textural application.
Not agree.
TPC Committee instruction is to endeavour to create
regional consistency on which zone the biodiversity
code can not apply to.
Inclusion of coastal
biodiversity values.
KC
Consider including vegetation within x distance of the coast in
this Code as this is not covered by the Coastal Hazards Code
Agree.
Planning scheme needs to cover coastal vegetation
biodiversity values. Whether through the biodiversity
code or a coastal values code – to be determined.
Exemptions
Level 2 Activities
CCAA
Level 2 activities operate under a permit issued by Council
where the environmental impact conditions have been drafted
by the Board of the Environment Protection Authority (EPA).
The Level 2 activity proceeds and continues under the
Agree.
The operation of the code should no apply to EMPCA
Level 2 Activities.
170
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
guidance of an environmental management plan that is
reviewed, in most cases every three years. The environmental
impacts assessed and controlled by the EPA include
disturbance to threatened vegetation communities, threatened
species and actions that might trigger the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
The CCAA’s concern is that its members may undertake works
that are compliant with their permit and with an approved
mining plan but trigger the Biodiversity Code.
This appears to be an unnecessary duplication of assessment.
Therefore, the CCAA urges that Level 2 activities as defined by
the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994
should be exempt from this code.
E.10.0 Biodiversity Code – (Minimal Version – with Overlay)
E.10.2
Application of Code
KC
Gaps in E.10.2 Application – doesn’t apply to some
development eg sewage treatment plant, upgrade of a road
(not normal maintenance), works not associated with a
building, mining activities or subdivision, change /commercial
of use involving clearing eg campground, carpark expansion,
clearing for structures other than buildings eg wind turbine,
telecommunications tower
Agree – in part.
Some revision considered necessary.
However, some of the cases cited by KC would be
covered by EMPCA Level 2 – e.g. new sewerage
treatment plants, substantive mining activities.
Terms and definitions
TPC
natural values
(E.11 Wetlands and Watercourses Code; E.10 Biodiversity
Code (Minimal Version – Overlay); and E.10 Biodiversity Code
(Textural application, with offsets))
Biodiversity Codes – it will be necessary to redraft the
definition of this term in both Codes to be consistent. For
discussion.
Not agree.
The term covers different values in the two codes.
Terms and definitions
TPC
natural values assessment
(E.11 Wetlands and Watercourses Code; E.10 Biodiversity
Code (Minimal Version – Overlay); and E.10 Biodiversity Code
(Textural application, with offsets))
Agree
171
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
The three Codes present three slightly varying definitions for
the one term.
Suggest review and redraft to provide consistency across the
three Codes.
Terms and definitions
KC
Definition of clearance and conversion in minimal code
doesn’t enable consideration of clearing for bushfire
Not a matter for the definition of the term?
Exemptions from code
KC
Exemption (b) in minimal code inappropriate as assessment
under EPBC not part of RMPS and doesn’t necessarily
consider the same values as the Code would address
Explanation:
Provide for this exemption to be regional optional.
If a planning authority’s local policy is to regulate for
the protection of native vegetation that is also
protected by commonwealth legislation, then (in the
absence of state direction on this matter) it should be
allowed to be so.
Exemptions from code
KC
Exemption (c) not appropriate in relation to Threatened
Species Act or Nature Conservation Act – permits are not
issued under NCA and where permits are issued under TSPA
these only relate to the taking of a species not loss of habitat or
vegetation. Reference to Forest Practices redundant as (g)
covers this exemption.
Explanation:
Provide for this exemption to be regional optional.
If a planning authority’s local policy is to regulate for
the protection of native vegetation that is also
protected by state legislation, then (in the absence of
state direction on this matter) it should be allowed to
be so.
Various typos, minor
amendments
HCC
Various typos and minor amendments noted by HCC
Agree.
Amend.
E.10.4.1 (b), (c ) and (d)
Cross-references to other
clauses.
TPC
Exemption clauses cross-reference other legislative
requirements.
Query whether these exemptions are necessary?
Clarification:
Legal advice is that it is appropriate to reference other
legislation so that it is clear the code does not manage
impact on biodiversity where regulated by other
legislation / levels of government.
The code is attempting to be clear that it does not
duplicate other assessment process where such
process can be reasonably considered to suffice.
For those councils that wish to duplicate other
172
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
assessment process, the code also needs to be clear
that this is the case.
E.10.7.1 P1
TPC
P1 (c ) - how can the ongoing management be
‘measured’/assured? What ‘arrangements’ does this refer to?
Clarification:
Arrangements may include: a Part 5 Agreement with
the planning authority, (although this is not an assured,
permanent mechanism), a covenant-in-gross with the
Council, a private land reserved covenant with the
State, (if separately agreed by the State).
Redraft appropriate to provide further clarity.
Note that no options exist to local government to be
100% assured, other than taking the land under its
ownership as Public Open Space, (and this may not be
best use of public resources).
Note also that ‘the planning authority’ is different to ‘the
council’. The former has a narrow range of policy and
legal considerations to apply to decisions, the latter a
broader range.
The acceptance of ownership and responsibility of a
new area of public land by local government because
of a provision in a planning scheme requires two
separate responsible decisions by Councils - one
acting as a Council under the Local Government and
one acting as a Planning Authority under LUPAA.
What may be an appropriate decision under one may
not be an appropriate decision under the other.
The system needs to recognise this.
Councils acting as a Council under the LGA must have
the option to reject propositions by proponents to ‘give’
land to them in an effort to meet a planning scheme
standard.
E.10.7.1
KC
Question:
Should this explicitly include construction of roads as per code
No.
Other provisions suffice.
173
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
application?
E.10.0 Biodiversity Code – (Textural Application – with Offsets)
Purpose – climate change
HCC
References to climate change in purpose statements.
There appears to be no standards in this Code relevant to
climate change adaptation or even guidance as to how this is
factored into application submission requirements and
evaluations/assessments.
Agree.
Amend to reflect the matters addressed by the code.
One known area where the planning schemes will
attempt to address climate change is on the coast. The
coastal hazards code will deal with sea level rise
issues.
Either the Wetlands & Watercourses Code or a coastal
values code will deal with allowance for backward
migration of coastal wetlands habitat.
General revision needed
KC
Current version on the textural application code is based on
combined code. If 2 codes are progressed, then purpose,
application, exemptions and standards of the textural code
need to be revised.
Explanation.
TPC Committee advice is to provide one code with
options.
It will also be possible for a Council to add additional
provisions if not satisfied with the regionally-provided
options.
Various typos, minor
amendments
HCC
Various typos and minor amendments noted by HCC
Agree.
Amend.
Special circumstances
KC
Special circumstances in textual application should only relate
to high priority values – needs clarifying
Agree - reconsider text.
Scope
SW
Is it worth considering a specified buffer / setback from a
potable water supply intake point? These points (for example
a weir with offtake) are particularly vulnerable to contamination
as these are often standing bodies of water from which raw
water is directly drawn. Key risks would be soil disturbance,
Acknowledged.
This should be arranged by tailoring the Water Quality
Protection Area map overlay in the Wetlands and
Watercourses code.
Recommend SW engage with local councils to provide
174
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
vegetation clearing, increased human access, onsite domestic
wastewater systems, stock access or chemical use.
input.
Terms and definitions
TPC
bioregion
Definition for the term ‘bioregion’ is necessary in E.10.0
Biodiversity Code (Textural application, with offsets), in order
to clarify clause E.10.7.1 P1(a).
Suggest inserting a definition in the Code and review for
consistency across other provisions.
Agree – if retain the concept of consideration of
impacts on the bioregion within the scheme.
Such considerations may be ultra viries, as the
operation of a planning scheme can only go to the
extent of the planning area. Consideration of impact on
the bioregion may have to be removed.
Consideration of bioregional issues is a strategic
matter. Therefore it should be undertaken in the
creation of the planning scheme, especially the spatial
allocation of zones and overlays, and should not be
part of the operation of the planning scheme.
However, provide a definition of this term for those
councils using the options that include this term.
Terms and definitions
TPC
disturbance
(and)
disturbance of a native vegetation community
Definition for “disturbance” in E.13.0 Significant Landscapes
Code and “disturbance of a native vegetation community”
in E.10.0 Biodiversity Code (Textural application, with offsets)
are similar but inconsistent. Is this appropriate?
Review and redraft to provide consistency across the two
Codes.
Explanation:
Need to terms: two separate concepts.
Terms and definitions
HCC
endangered vegetation community
This definition appears unnecessary for the operation of the
Code?
Agree.
Terms and definitions
TPC
natural values
(E.11 Wetlands and Watercourses Code; E.10 Biodiversity
Code (Minimal Version – Overlay); and E.10 Biodiversity Code
(Textural application, with offsets))
Explanation.
Term covers different things in the two codes.
175
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Biodiversity Codes – it will be necessary to redraft the
definition of this term in both Codes to be consistent. For
discussion.
Terms and definitions
TPC
natural values assessment
(E.11 Wetlands and Watercourses Code; E.10 Biodiversity
Code (Minimal Version – Overlay); and E.10 Biodiversity Code
(Textural application, with offsets))
The three Codes present three slightly varying definitions for
the one term.
Suggest review and redraft to provide consistency across the
three Codes.
Agree
Terms and definitions
HCC
rare native vegetation community
This definition appears unnecessary for the operation of the
Code?
Agree.
Terms and definitions
HCC
vulnerable vegetation community
This definition appears unnecessary for the operation of the
Code?
Agree.
E.10.4.1 (d) and (m)
TPC
Exemptions from Code at E10.4.1 (d) and (m)
Should include Significant Agriculture Zone.
Agree.
Areas zoned Significant Agriculture will not contain
significant amounts of significant biodiversity values.
The exception will be remnant riparian vegetation
along watercourses. The Wetlands and Watercourses
Code will provide protection for remnant riparian
vegetation along watercourses in the Significant
Agriculture Zone.
E.10.7.1 P1
TPC
A1 (c) and P1 (d) – ‘habitable buildings’ may not always be the
proposed development.
P1 - need to modify to consider the occasion where
development impacting low biodiversity values is not permitted.
P1 only relates to potential impact on high or moderate
biodiversity values.
Clarification:
A1 (c) and P1 (d) – It is intended that this provision
only apply to ‘habitable’ buildings.
P1 – It is intended that it is permitted to impact low
biodiversity values.
176
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
P1(e) - how can the ongoing management be
‘measured’/assured?
P1(e) - Arrangements may include: a Part 5
Agreement with the planning authority, (although this is
not an assured, permanent mechanism), a covenantin-gross with the Council, a private land reserved
covenant with the State, (if satisfying State priorities).
Note that, other than land becoming public land, there
is no way to be 100% assured re: ongoing
management.
E.10.7.2 P1 (b)
TPC
E.10.7.2 Biodiversity Offsets P1 (b) reliant on: Table E10.3 Biodiversity Offset Ratios - ”Minor variations in the ratios…..”
Creates ambiguity. Query whether the minor variations are part
of the discretion afforded to the planning authority as the
decision maker?
In second dot point, term ‘social values’ appears incorrect.
Agree.
P1 (b) and the statement at start of Table E.10.3 needs
to be clarified and defined more clearly.
The terms ‘social values’ is also inappropriate. Should
be altered to refer to values recognised and protected
by the planning scheme. (e.g. areas defined as ‘scenic
landscapes’ in that code).
E.10.7.2. P1 (c ) and (d)
TPC
P1 (c ) and (d) – use of word ‘enhances’, should this be
replaced with ‘ensures’?
P1 (d) – ‘third party review’ – what does this entail/mean?
Agree in part.
‘Enhances’ may be appropriate in some cases where
an offset is provided by way of improving degraded
values within existing reserves. Redraft necessary to
clarify.
‘Third party review’ removes role and authority of the
planning authority, and is insufficiently defined. Delete
this concept.
Consider the need for the Code to provide protection for the
landscape value / natural appearance of watercourses and the
potential for those values to be affected by development within
water quality protection areas. This may take the form of a
standard with limited acceptable solutions and has regard to
the particular siting, scale and design of development. This
potential issue may be more relevant where development is
Not agree for regional provisions, at this stage.
Suggest Councils may add as local provision.
E.11.0 Wetlands & Watercourses Code
Scope of Code
Inclusion of landscape values
HVC
177
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
proposed up to or near the edge of natural banks.
Scope
KC
Needs to consider stormwater issues beyond erosion
Explanation
Stormwater issues are located in the Infrastructure
Code.
(However, that code may be reduced to just the
stormwater provisions - refer TPC Committee
comments. If so, may be appropriate to delete
Infrastructure Code altogether and transfer stormwater
provisions to the watercourse code.)
Listing of individual
watercourses
GCC
The proposed code does not list individual watercourses.
Explanation:
This will be unnecessary if the overlay provides
sufficient coverage, which is the intention.
Regional project working with DPIPWE / DEP to
generate a watercourses overlay for the southern
region.
Nevertheless, there may be benefit is listing the higherorder watercourses and their respective protection
distances.
Lower-order watercourses are likely to be too
numerous to list for the larger rural councils. Also, if all
watercourses are purported to be listed, the risk is that
some (many?) will be missed.
Various typos, minor
amendments
HCC
Various typos and minor amendments noted by HCC
Agree.
Amend.
Various typos, minor
amendments
DPIPWE
Various typos and minor amendments noted by HCC
Agree.
Amend.
E.11.1.1 (a)
Purpose
DPIPWE
Suggest change to:
“(a)
protect water quality, environmental flows, river
condition, natural values, waterway values, natural
streambank and streambed condition, and the natural
ecological function in watercourses, wetlands and lakes other
“Other water bodies” is too broad.
178
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
waterbodies”
E.11.2
Application of Code
KC
Application of the Code is for development but the
development standards explicitly refer to buildings and works,
public access or subdivision. There are no development
standards which relate to other developments eg clearing for
change of use eg campground, culverts, crossings, bridges.
The current Kingborough Scheme Waterways, Wetlands and
the Coastal Area Schedule includes provisions in relation to
clearing of riparian vegetation for development broadly and
also includes provisions in relation to road access and
construction.
Suggest E.11.7.1 and E.11.7.2 relate to development adjacent
to a watercourse (other than subdivision)
Suggest inclusion of Clauses 5.2.3.1-5.2.3.3 of Schedule 5
from Kingborough Planning Scheme 2000.
Not agree – generally.
‘Works’ covers the examples given in the KC
comments.
E.11.3
Terms and definitions
DPIPWE
biophysical assessment (proposed new term)
In addition to a natural values assessment consistent with the
Guidelines for Natural Values Assessment, (DPIPWE July
2009), a biophysical assessment includes affects on
biodiversity, river condition, and environmental flow.
Query – would not a ‘natural values assessment’ be
able to cover ‘biophysical assessment’?
E.11.3
Terms and definitions
DPIPWE
environmental flow
Suggest change to:
“means the water regime within a watercourse necessary to
maintain ecosystems and their benefits, including the
maintenance of hydraulic connectivity and geomorphic
characteristics and processes”
Agree
E.11.3
Terms and definitions
DPIPWE
natural bank stability
Suggest change the name of the term and the definition to:
natural streambank and streambed condition stability
“means the natural rate of erosion or accretion of the bank and
bed of a watercourse and natural hydrological processes, as
determined using The Tasmanian River Condition Index
Agree
179
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
(TRCI): Physical Form Field Manual and Hydrology User’s
Manual (NRM South 2009)
(This does not imply absolute stability as the bank and bed of
all streams is subject to natural erosion over time. Thus, an
unstable bank or bed is one that is eroding at a faster rate than
natural).”
E.11.3
Terms and definitions
TPC
natural values
(E.11 Wetlands and Watercourses Code; E.10 Biodiversity
Code (Minimal Version – Overlay); and E.10 Biodiversity Code
(Textural application, with offsets)
The definition of the term is limited to values particularly
associated with waterways. This may cause confusion in
relation to use of the Guidelines for Natural Values
Assessment, (DPIPWE July 2009). Suggest redraft term name
in this Code to be ‘waterway values’. (NB ‘waterway values’ is
already used in clause E.11.7.2 in the objective and
development standards)
Possible agree
But see above
IS THERE A NEED FOR SPECIFIC DEFINITION FOR
THIS CODE?
E.11.3
Terms and definitions
DPIPWE
natural values
Suggest change to:
“means biodiversity, environmental flows, natural streambank
stability and stream bed condition , riparian vegetation, water
quality, wetlands, river condition and waterway values.”
Possible agree
But see below
IS THERE A NEED FOR SPECIFIC DEFINITION FOR
THIS CODE?
E.11.3
Terms and definitions
TPC
natural values assessment
(E.11 Wetlands and Watercourses Code; E.10 Biodiversity
Code (Minimal Version – Overlay); and E.10 Biodiversity Code
(Textural application, with offsets))
The three Codes present three slightly varying definitions for
the one term.
Suggest review and redraft to provide consistency across the
three Codes.
See above
E.11.3
HCC
‘recharge area’ (proposed new term)
Explanation:
180
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Terms and definitions
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
HCC provided a table of various definitions from around
Australia and overseas.
A definition of ‘recharge area’ would be required if the
code is to apply to such areas that are not included in
a spatial overlay or within the default distances from
watercourses and wetlands (10, 20. 30 and 40
metres). Intention should be that important recharge
areas are recognised and included in the overlay.
E.11.3
Terms and definitions
DPIPWE
riparian vegetation
Include ‘generally aquatic’
Not agree.
No need.
E.11.3
Terms and definitions
DPIPWE
riparian vegetation
Why include ‘artificial water storages? This would appear to
include such things as water tanks and sewage ponds?
Why have farm dams been excluded?
‘Artificial water storages’ was included to refer to hydro
dams and potable water supply dams. However, the
term ‘lake’ is considered sufficient to capture these.
Therefore, delete term “artificial water storages”.
Farm dams were excluded as farm dams are exempt
from planning schemes. However, it is not necessary
for the planning scheme to state this.
Delete the phrase “(other than farm dams)”
Amend ‘water quality protection area’ definition also.
E.11.3
Terms and definitions
DPIPWE
‘river condition’ (proposed new term)
Condition of a waterway as determined using the Tasmanian
River Condition Index (TRCI) (NRM South 2009)
????????
E.11.3
Terms and definitions
DPIPWE
waterway values
Suggest change to:
means the values of watercourses and wetlands derived from
their aquatic habitat and riparian vegetation, physical elements,
landscape values, recreational values and economic values
and the processes and functions that underpin them.
Not agree.
E.11.3
Terms and definitions
DPIPWE
wetlands (proposed new term)
“as described and defined in A Wetlands Strategy for
Tasmania (DPIPWE) and includes, but is not limited to wetland
and saltmarsh TASVEG mapping categories in Harris and
Not agree.
Common meaning of the term is considered sufficient.
However, reference to the quoted document could be
made in a non-statutory footnote.
181
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Kitchener (2005):
Freshwater aquatic herbland (AHF);
Freshwater aquatic sedgeland and rushland (ASF);
Lacustrine herbland (AHL);
Saline aquatic herbland (AHS);
Saline sedgeland/rushland (ARS);
Saltmarsh (undifferentiated) (AUS);
Succulent saline herbland (ASS);
Wetland (undifferentiated) (AWU);
and associated scrub, forest, woodland communities when
occurring in association with wetland and saltmarsh.”
(Harris, S and Kitchener, A (2005). From Forest to Fjaeldmark:
Descriptions of Tasmania’sVegetation. Department of Primary
Industries, Water and Environment, Printing Authority of
Tasmania. Hobart)
Regional Project Response
E.11.3
Terms and definitions
Regional
Project
Extent and detail of definitions
The extent and detail of definitions for this code is
getting several levels above other codes.
Not clear that these are needed.
E.11.4
Exemptions
HVC
Consider additional exemptions for Council works within
riverside reserves.
Agree.
E.11.4
Exemptions
KC
Need exemption for where permit issued under Water
Management Act for a dam
Not agree.
LUPAA S.60A explicitly provides that a dam approved
under the Water Management Act is not to be subject
to the need for a planning permit under a planning
schemes.
This is not the case for some other examples of
potential red tape duplication, such as EMPCA Level 2
Activities. S.25 of that Act does not state that a
planning authority cannot apply environmental-related
conditions in addition to the EPA conditions, only that
they are not to conflict with them.
182
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
E.11.4
Exemptions
Level 2 Activities
CCAA
The current wording refers to use or development within 50 m
of a wetland or watercourse.
The definition of a wetland is broad and can include any land
that is flat and poorly drained. Once again, in this case Level 2
activities have been assessed for their impact and compliance
with the State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997 and
the Water Management Act 1999. The ongoing review process
ensures that the impacts of all actions are evaluated by the
EPA and Mineral Resources Tasmania.
This also appears to be an unnecessary duplication of
assessment.
We urge that Level 2 activities as defined by the Environmental
Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 should be exempt
from this code.
Agree.
S.25 of EMPCA does not state that a planning
authority cannot apply environmental-related
conditions in addition to the EPA conditions, only that
they are not to conflict with them.
E.11.4 (a)
Exemptions
DPIPWE
Suggest expand to:
“(a)
development that does not involve clearing of
vegetation, soil disturbance or changes to natural values,
waterway values or river condition;”
Not agree.
The suggested addition is insufficiently readily
determinable to be an exemption.
E.11.4 (a)
Exemptions
SW
Would this cover onsite wastewater management systems?
These are a potential risk to raw water quality in close
proximity to waterways.
The code does not cover this issue. This is subject to
regulation outside the planning scheme.
E.11.4 (b)(i)
Exemptions
DPIPWE
Suggest limit to native vegetation
Not agree.
Removal of non-native vegetation may have impact on
water quality.
Note that remove of weeds is separately exempt.
E.11.4 (b)(i)
Exemptions
SW
What defines this? Does this mean land that is currently used
for the above (eg is actually pasture), or land that is zoned for
the above use (eg is not currently pasture but is on a title that
is mainly used as (eg) pasture or is zoned intensive
agriculture)? This is one of the key areas for us. Maintaining
vegetation along waterways in agricultural settings is really
important from a water quality perspective as it provides a
Agree.
Explanation.
The provision is intended to apply to land that is used
for such purposes, not to land in a particular zone.
However, need to revise the wording to clarify this
meaning further.
183
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
buffer to reduce sediment, nutrient, pesticide and herbicide
entry to water ways. Vegetation strips also help reduce the
impact of stock access on stream / river banks. This seems like
a big loophole that exempts the highest risk uses (from our
perspective) from the code.
E.11.4 (b)(ii)
Exemptions
DPIPWE
Suggest delete ‘within a private garden, public garden or
park…”
Recommend removing these from being exempt or create a
definition of ‘garden’ or ‘park’ that prevents inappropriate
vegetation clearance.
Not agree.
Too minor to warrant regulation.
Costs to society of regulation likely to be greater than
benefits.
E.11.4 (b)(ii)
Exemptions
SW
‘ … within a private garden, public garden or park…”
Why are state reserves and council parks exempt? I
understand that National Parks have similar values protected
by other heads of power, but I don’t think (may be wrong here)
that State reserves or Council parks do.
Explanation:
State and local government are considered
responsible authorities with sufficient in-house policies
and protocols so as not to need regulation by the
planning system.
E.11.4 (d)
Exemptions
SW
‘(d)
fire hazard management in accordance with a bushfire
hazard management plan approved as part of a use or
development approved under this planning scheme’
Shouldn’t a development satisfy both the bushfire management
requirements and the waterway code?
Agree.
A development proposal needs to satisfy all relevant
parts of a planning scheme together.
Delete provision
E.11.4 (e)
Exemptions
SW
‘(e)
fire hazard reduction required in accordance with the
Fire Services Act 1979 or an abatement notice issued under
the Local Government Act 1993’
Can these instruments take into account the requirements of
the wetland / waterway code?
Explanation.
No – these instruments will not take into account this
code.
Managing existing risk is considered a higher priority
than protecting values.
Retain exemption.
E.11.4 (h) & (k)
Exemptions
DPIPWE
Suggest add
“Exemption conditional that works are in accordance with best
practice: ‘Soil and Water Management for Building and
Construction Sites (2009)’; Wetlands and Waterways Works
Manual (DPIPWE, 2003); Tasmanian Acid Sulfate Soil
Not agree.
Not possible to make an exemption conditional in this
way.
184
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Management Guidelines”
E.11.4 (i)
Exemptions
DPIPWE
Suggest add
“Exemption conditional that works are in accordance with best
practice to protect natural values and waterway values, and
sites are rehabilitated”
Not agree.
Not possible to make an exemption conditional in this
way.
E.11.5.1
Application requirements
SW
What is the guidance to Planners as to when they require an
applicant to provide this information?
Explanation:
Guidance is implicit in the wording of the performance
criteria.
E.11.5.1
Application requirements
DPIPWE
Suggest add:
“(c)
an acid sulfate soil management plan.
(d)
a biophysical assessment”.
Agree re: biophysical assessment.
Not agree re: acid sulfate soil management plan. A
separate code deals with acid sulfate soils.
Query – would not a ‘natural values report’ be able to
cover ‘biophysical assessment’ ?
E.11.7.1
Buildings and works adjacent
to a watercourse or wetland
DPIPWE
Suggest add:
“… and allows for landward retreat of wetlands as sea-level
rises.”
Explanation;
This issue is to be explicitly dealt with elsewhere in this
code (or a coastal values code) through a specific
overlay.
E.11.7.1 A1 (b)
Buildings and works adjacent
to a watercourse or wetland
DPIPWE
Suggest remove (b); reference to Rivercare Plan under the
Water Management Act.
Remove this as WMA does not have provisions to approve a
rivercare plan – it creates riverworks districts which allow for a
range of activities associated with river management and
rehabilitation; most rivercare plans that currently exist are out
of date having been done under NHT1 and variable in quality;
Works should not contravene the WMA – ie the construction of
levees, diversion of water course, creation of barriers etc.
Agree.
Delete (b)
E.11.7.3
TPC
E.11.7.3 Public Access P1 (b) the authority responsible for
managing the public land confirms the access is to be
removed.
Performance criteria does not implement the objective unless
Agree.
Not sufficient need for standard.
Delete.
185
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
assumption is that the responsible authority always
appropriately maintains public access, in which case the
standard is redundant.
Delete standard or redraft P1(b).
E.12.0 Geodiversity Code
Various typos, minor
amendments
HCC
Various typos and minor amendments noted by HCC
Agree.
Amend.
Geocon Database
DPIPWE
The Geocon Database has two limitations regarding its use for
land use planning purposes:
(a) the database is dynamic, and therefore “point-in-time”
creation of an overlay will quickly be outdated;
(b) coverage of geoconservation significance on private land is
limited.
Explanation:
The planning scheme code overlay should be
generation from the State’s Geocon Database, as it
exists at the time of formal submission of the scheme
to the Minister.
Subsequent additions to the Geocon Database to be
added at future major scheme reviews (or specific
planning scheme amendments).
Spatial information of all values will always be limited.
However the new planning schemes must provide a
degree of certainty as to what is regulated. Alterative
would be for geodiversity not to be regulated by
planning schemes.
Geocon Database
KC
The Geocon Database has been updated and the Code should
reflect this.
(Assume this refers to sites and therefore the code overlay.)
Explanation:
The planning scheme code overlay should be
generation from the State’s Geocon Database, as it
exists at the time of formal submission of the scheme
to the Minister.
Subsequent additions to the Geocon Database to be
added at future major scheme reviews (or specific
planning scheme amendments).
186
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Spatial information of all values will always be limited.
However the new planning schemes must provide a
degree of certainty as to what is regulated. Alterative
would be for geodiversity not to be regulated by
planning schemes.
E.12.1
Purpose
KC
The Code essentially only protects listed areas of high
geodiversity value – the purpose should reflect this
Agree.
E.12.3
Definition of terms
DPIPWE
Suitably qualified person
Unfortunately, consultants don’t generally have geodiversity
expertise; “suitably qualified persons” may therefore not be
available. This remains an import aspiration, however.
Noted.
Provide a general definition for this code.
E.12.3
Definition of terms
GCC
Geoconservation Site - extent
If we expand site boundaries as suggested above than this
definition would not be correct
The drafting note states that the sites are to be derived from
the state’s database, but may be enlarged by a planning
authority if it considers development on adjacent land may
have an adverse impact.
Comment: If we expand boundaries, we will need to reconcile
that with the definition for Geoconservation Site and we will
need to provide additional standards for development on sites
adjacent to geoconservation sites. (the proposed standard
only deals with development on the geoconservation site)
Not agree.
The definition of a geoconservation site is that which is
mapped. If the planning authority judges it
appropriate, this may include some portion of
surrounding titles. There for the ‘site’ for the purposes
of the planning scheme is larger than the ‘site’ as it
appears in the States Geoconservation database.
E.12.3
Definition of terms
GCC
Geoconservation Site - extent
Presumably and similar to heritage sites, it is unlikely that
geoconservation sites will follow title boundaries, how will we
address this? (e.g. if it is a large title and the site involves only
a small part of the title, we should not encumber the entire site
with restrictions
Explanation.
Geoheritage sites will not follow title boundaries.
They are defined by overlay on planning scheme
maps.
E.12.4.1 (b)
Exemptions
GCC
‘works within 2m of infrastructure’
Are we only including public infrastructure as opposed to
Not agree.
All infrastructure included.
187
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
private infrastructure such as a house, fencing, shed, etc? If
so, change it to public infrastructure.
E.12.4.1 (c)
Exemptions
GCC
‘removal of weeds’
Can the manner in which weeds are removed have an adverse
impact?
Not agree.
Whatever adverse impact weed removal may have, the
planning schemes are not going to require a planning
permit for weed removal.
E.12.4.1 (d)
Exemptions
GCC
‘works to remedy unacceptable risk’
Question: In whose opinion is ‘unacceptable’ ?
Answer:
The planning authority’s.
E.12.4.1 (e)
Exemptions
GCC
‘forest practices plan’
Question: Does the Forest Practices plan assessment process
consider geodiversity?
Answer:
Yes.
E.12.6
Use Standards
GCC
There are not use standards.
Question: Is use not a factor that could impact on geodiversity
values?
Answer:
Possible but not sufficiently probably to warrant
regulation under planning schemes.
E.12.7
Need for standards for
development adjacent to a
site.
GCC
The drafting note refers to adjacent land.
We would need to have appropriate development standards for
this to have any effect. The proposed development standard
would not address this.
Not agree.
If the planning authority considers development on
adjacent land would have adverse impact, then the
‘site’ should be drawn to include that land.
E.12.7
GCC
Suggest no need to refer to ‘land within’ a site.
Agree
E.12.7 P1
KC
P1 does not give any option for mitigating or minimising where
there may be an adverse impact.
Agree – in part.
Current draft is that no impacts occur. However, as the
comment implies, it may be appropriate to allow nonsignificant impacts and also minimal minor impacts
where mitigated
Need for Acceptable Solution
HVC
There should be the ability for an acceptable solution to
consider previous studies of the site or nearby land. For
instance, a house application may attract a dispersive soils
assessment report & and a shed or house addition at a later
point would attract a further report.
Not agree.
Acceptable solutions can not be based on reports from
suitably qualified persons.
188
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
E.13.0 (Local) Heritage Code
Name of code
HT
It is suggested that it just be called the ‘Historic Heritage
Code’, to remove any confusion that the Code deals with
Indigenous or natural heritage places. We now feel that
providing people the option of where to use the word ‘local’
throughout the document will result in unnecessary confusion.
We however support the notion of including it in the purpose as
a standard part of the template, to ensure the Code identifies
obligations under LUPAA as distinct from places managed
under State heritage legislation.
Agree – in part.
Change name to ‘Historic Heritage Code’.
Retain the word ‘local’ in the Purpose statement.
Remove the optional ‘local’ below Purpose statement
in the operation provisions.
Retain the word ‘local’ in ‘Local Heritage Place’.
Recognition of local heritage
places
PAHSMA
The draft Code confuses issues of development control with
the identification of places of local heritage value. If the
purpose of the Code is to both “recognise and protect the
historic cultural significance of local places” (E.16.1)
mechanisms for both objectives need to be established.
As it stands the Code is virtually silent on how and by whom
local places are to be identified. If the Code is to be consistent
with the approaches taken in State legislation and with the
Articles of the Burra Charter then the criteria by which local
places are to be identified need to be established as part of the
Code itself. The application of the Code without any definitions
as to the process by which significance has been established
(in general or in particular) will be extremely difficult and
subject to challenge.
Explanation:
In terms of including criteria for determining which
places ought to be on the list; this kind of information
should exist outside the planning scheme as part and
parcel of a whole range of other foundation documents
that provide the justification for everything that is in the
scheme.
In terms of 'who recognises local places'; planning
schemes are prepared by Planning Authorities
(Councils) so it will be Planning Authorities that
determine which places are included in the list. This is
as it should be as 'local significance' ultimately means
'what the local community consider to be significant'. It
is the democratically elected representatives of local
communities that only have the right to determine this,
(with the benefit of expert advice). The only alternative
to this is an un-democratic process un-accountable to
the citizens.
The elected representatives of the people at State
level have delegate this role to an independent
authority, but in so doing they have specified the
189
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
criteria by which determination of ‘state significance’ is
to be made, (the listing criteria set out in the Historic
Cultural Heritage Act 1995). It is appropriate for
elected representatives to determine to do this.
However, there has been no such determination by the
elected representatives of the people at any of the
Southern Councils.
The Southern Region has made the decision that the
list of places will be just that: a list, and it will not set
out statements of significance or criteria. One reason
for this is that it would mean most current listings in
existing planning schemes could not be included in the
new planning schemes as there are no resources for
collating all this information in the time available. Also,
by locking-in this kind of information within a planning
scheme it would require a planning scheme
amendment to update it when relevant new information
is found regarding a particular place.
Inclusion of a list in the code
PAHSMA
The inclusion of a ‘heritage list’ within the Code itself is
problematic. Any changes to such a list – additions, deletions,
amendments – would require that the entire Code be
amended.
It would be reasonable also to suggest that a list within the
Code could only recognise places of local significance and
would be unable to provide guidance to Council on all heritage
places (whether of local, State, national or world heritage
value) within its administrative boundaries.
It is preferable if the Code:
(a) establishes the criteria by which places of local significance
are to be recognised and establishes the development control
processes that will apply to them, and
(b) makes reference to a list or schedule, separate from the
Code, that lists heritage places within a Council’s jurisdiction.
Such a schedule could differentiate between places of varying
190
Explanation:
As mentioned above; criteria/rationale for listing should
be outside planning schemes, as part of the foundation
documents.
The development control processes should be in the
schemes. The code provides that applications for
development will be discretionary applications under
LUPAA.
The idea of having a separate list outside the planning
scheme has some merit and has been the subject of a
number of discussions in recent years between
Heritage Tas and Council planners. This would need
an amendment to LUPAA to make it happen. There
would also have to be a formal process of amending
the list in which property owners and the general
community have rights of objection / representation /
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
Cumbersome wordiness
From
PAHSMA
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
levels of significance but all places would be described and
their significance set out against the relevant criteria by which
they have been judged. While there would need to be a
process for making changes to the list this would not require a
Code amendment each time a place was added or deleted
from the list.
appeal and final consideration through formal hearings,
etc. similar to what they have now under current
planning scheme amendment processes. In other
words, if such a process could make a property subject
to the provisions of a planning scheme, principles of
natural justice would require similar rights to apply to
the process as would apply in a planning scheme
amendment process. Therefore, in short, such an
approach would very likely not be a short-cut
amendment processes wherein places are added or
subtracted from control by the planning scheme.
We are ultimately working towards the 1997 COAG
Agreement wherein Council planning schemes will only
list places of local significance. At the moment,
however, most planning scheme lists include many
"dual listed" places. That is; they are also on the THR.
It is understood the State is working towards reviewing
all the THR listings to identify which are not, in fact, of
State significance and should not be on the THR. This
will take some time, however, so in the meantime all
the currently listed places on existing planning
schemes are proposed to transfer across to the new
schemes. The code states that it does not apply to a
listed place if that place is also on the THR. This will
have the effect of eliminating parallel assessment
processes, and clarify that the local Council defers to
the decision of the THC with respect to the heritage
aspects of a proposed development to a THR place.
Much of the wording of the Code is cumbersome and in places
unnecessarily repetitive. This arises in part from the conflation
of the Code with a heritage register. As the Code’s main
function is to restrict or control development in certain places it
may be more useful and more efficient to organise the Code by
development control mechanisms rather than by the places to
which they apply. This would result, for example, in eliminating
Explanation:
As indicated above, the code will continue to be both a
list and a development control mechanism.
‘Places’ and ‘precincts’ are separate things, and the
code sold deal with them separately.
May be desirable, however, for the Heritage Precincts
191
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
the repetition of control measures for heritage precincts and
heritage landscapes.
and Heritage Landscapes sections to be
amalgamated.
Council resources
PAHSMA
The identification of places of local heritage value and the
application of the Code places a responsibility upon local
councils to develop and/or acquire and retain expertise in
heritage management. Without a commitment to achieving this
capability the Code will be extremely difficult to implement.
Serious consideration needs to be given to the practicalities of
Code implementation and heritage list development, and how
this will be achieved.
Comments noted.
The code provides for Councils to request the
applicant to provide various kinds of reports from
suitably qualified persons. A few Councils do have
their own heritage professionals, but many do not. A
Council would be able to request advice from a second
heritage professional (some have them on retainers) if
not happy with the advice provided by the applicant's
expert, prior to making a determination.
Terminology
PAHSMA
There is some ambiguity between ‘local places’ and ‘places of
local heritage significance’
Agree.
Eliminate differences in terminology.
Alignment of terms with Burra
Charter
HCC
It would be preferable if the terms used/defined in the Code
including ‘Cultural significance’ should be those in the
Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter. This is especially so in the
light of the intention of Heritage Tasmania to have a separate
‘State’ listings for which it will be responsible and for planning
schemes to be ultimately to be the statutory instrument for
controlling works on those Heritage Places not on a State list.
This differentiation seems to be the policy position taken
through COAG and in that respect the Burra Charter should be
a key reference for overall ‘alignment’. This perhaps is on the
agenda for legislative change that is mooted for Heritage. At
the very last there should be an explanatory statement as to
why the Burra Charter definitions are considered inappropriate
Explanation:
The code as drafted aligns terms and definitions with
the Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995.
The alternative is to align terms and definitions with the
Burra Charter, as suggested by HCC.
There are very valid reasons for both options.
At this point in time the Regional Project has chosen
the former as it is envisaged that planning scheme
regulation of local-significance heritage will better
complement Historic Cultural Heritage Act regulation of
state-significance heritage if terms and definitions are
aligned.
Consideration of places of
state significance (THR-listed
places).
GCC
The Heritage Council processes for assessing development of
places of heritage sites is currently under review. The ultimate
intent is that only places of state significance will be considered
by the Heritage Council, and places of local significance will be
considered by planning authorities, hence the name ‘Local
Heritage Code’.
At this stage the proposal is that places of state significance
Not agree.
For THR listed places the only authority that should
consider heritage issues is the THC.
The draft code specifically excludes places that are
‘dual listed’ i.e. on both the planning scheme list and
on the Tasmanian Heritage Register (THR).
192
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
will continue to be considered by the proposed Local Heritage
Code because:
•
the state assessment system does not consider
matters that are of local significance
•
the state system does not provide for consideration of
other planning matters (e.g. car parking, use)
On the understanding that places of state significance would
still need a planning permit, the planning authority will need to
have the ability to consider heritage significance as a
consideration in the assessment of proposals.
Regional Project Response
This is to avoid duplicate heritage assessment
processes.
For THR places, non-heritage planning considerations
will continue to be controlled by the planning scheme
and considered and determined by the planning
authority.
For THR places, development requiring a THC works
permit always requires a discretionary planning permit
- regardless of what the planning scheme says.
Exemption (optional) of places
of state significance (THRlisted places).
HCC
Exempting the THR listed places from the code is not
appropriate for the Hobart Planning Scheme as the THR for
the Hobart municipal area is based on the list contained in the
CHPS 1982 at the time it was incorporated into the THR. It
would mean that nearly all of the listed places currently in
Hobart would not be covered by the Code].
We are seeking delegated authority from the THC to reduce
the administrative burden on applicants and improve efficiency
in the process.
Agree.
HCC’s pending agreement with the THR for delegated
authority to deal with THR listed places would achieve
the objective of eliminating duplicate heritage
assessment processes.
Assessment of local heritage
places – Council resources.
CHC
Some concern about how Council would assess local heritage
places, without in house expertise and without making it costly
for Council and developers alike.
If Heritage is not duplicated when it is listed with the THC, how
does Council recover costs of administration and advertising
that they have to do on behalf of THC when they would no
longer necessarily be taking a DA themselves.
It is up to each Council to determine if it wishes to
recognise and protect ‘local significance’ heritage (as
per COAG 1997 Agreement).
Councils who do this need to do so in the knowledge
they will need to apply resources to assessment tasks.
In determining whether to create or apply any
regulation, it is entirely appropriate for the authority to
consider the resources required to do the job. If it is not
able to provide sufficient resources it should not create
or apply the regulation.
In regard to Council DA process created by a THC
listed place (but not on the local planning scheme); this
situation occurs already. Councils can recover a
proportion of costs in the application and public
193
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
notification fees.
E.13.1
Purpose
(Proposed new)
CCC
Suggest additional purpose statement:
“To provide for the adaptive reuse of heritage places by
allowing for a use that would otherwise be prohibited, if this will
demonstrably assist with the conservation of the place.”
This goes hand in hand with CCC’s suggestion to include this
provision in the code instead of in part 9 of the planning
scheme.
Not agree.
The provision is to be in Section 9, because:
The code does not apply to places listed on the
Tasmanian Heritage Register only (i.e. not in the
planning scheme).
Also; the code (optionally) does not apply to ‘dual
listed’ heritage places.
However, the adaptive reuse provisions are intended
to apply to both THR listed places and planning
scheme listed places.
Section 9 is the only part of the scheme powerful
enough to achieve all of the above.
E.13.2.1
Application
Option to not apply code to
‘dual listed’ places.
HT
We endorse the provision proposed under item (a), unless
otherwise delegated.
It is suggested that the commentary at the bottom of this
section is unnecessary and should be removed.
Noted.
Commentary is drafting instruction intended only for
Council (and later TPC) planners. It will not be visible
to public.
E.13.3
Definition
HT
Cultural landscape precinct
Instead of using the term “artificial”, the terms “built” or
“constructed” would be preferable.
Agree.
E.13.3
Definition
HT
Cultural landscape precinct
We also suggest ending the definition at group and missing out
the “for their landscape value” as that in itself required another
definition (or be open to debate in a Tribunal hearing).
Not agree.
‘Landscape value’ is the key rationale for inclusion of
this mechanism.
A general definition of this term is not needed as the
table at the rear of the code will articulate landscape
value for each precinct.
E.13.3
Definition
HT
Heritage precinct
For similar reasons, as above, we suggest that the definition
finish sentence at’ group’ and remove “or for their streetscape
or townscape value”. Another suggested alternative would be
Not agree.
The table at the end of the code to include the values
for each precinct..
194
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
to link both of these definitions to the statement of significance
in the table as then there would be no confusion].
The note under this definition is supported, but can now be
removed.
Regional Project Response
The note will not be visible to public.
E.13.3
Definition
HT
Statement of significance
Statement in black can now be removed as it is considered to
be commentary.
The note will not be visible to public.
E.13.4.1
Exemption (c) (e) (f)
PAHSMA
The developments exempt from the Code E16.4 (c), (e), (f)
should be reconsidered.
Explanation:
(c) allows for restoration of original heritage fabric.
Local government does not wish to require a planning
permit (which would have to be a discretionary
planning permit) for such work.
(e) allows for works required for compliance with BCA
fire regulation that are not visible externally. Local
government does not wish to require a planning permit
(which would have to be a discretionary planning
permit) for such work.
(f) is intended to only be used to exempt those sites
which are clearly hidden from view. Some re-wording
may be appropriate to further clarify.
E.13.4.1
Exemption (f)
BC
Exemption (f) is unworkable. Too onerous to determine if a
development that does not yet exist is visible or not from many
different sites.
Explanation:
Intended to only be used to exempt those sites which
are clearly hidden from view.
Some re-wording may be appropriate to further clarify.
E.13.4.1
Exemption (f)
HCC
As per comment on earlier draft this is in fact a potential very
broad qualification – any ‘public roads &streets ‘ -and could
lead to legal challenges. Even as an Acceptable Solution it
would require tightening.
The limited exemptions of S6.0 in the template are relevant i.e.
... “unless it involves a place or precinct listed in a heritage
code that is part of this planning scheme”. (f) means
development is exempt from consideration under the Heritage
Explanation:
Intended to only be used to exempt those sites which
are clearly hidden from view.
Some re-wording may be appropriate to further clarify.
Provide as an optional exemption.
In regard to relationship with Limited Exemptions, it is
presumed that the Template provides the ability for
195
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Code, but seemingly it cannot be exempt entirely under the
limited exemptions if it is a Local Heritage Place within a
Heritage Precinct
codes to exempt use and development not subject to
General or Limited Exemptions.
E.13.4.1
Exemption (f)
HT
We suggest this should refer to “development within a Heritage
Precinct in Table E.16.2 or Cultural Landscape Precinct in
Table E.16.3”. This would pin point the detail of the individual
Code and avoids confusion with other similar provisions.
Not agree.
Not considered necessary as Heritage Precinct and
Cultural Landscape Precinct are thus defined.
E.13.4.1
Exemption (i)
HCC
“(i) development not involving excavation in a Place of
Archaeological Potential‘
“excavation” needs a definition or clarification stating
‘excavation over ...m2’, otherwise planting a bush could be
considered ‘excavation’
Agree – however:
This is problematic: significant archaeological remains
may be just below the surface. Defining any allowed
amount of excavation would allow such remains to be
destroyed, which might then defeat the purpose of
listing the site in the first instance.
Therefore, add “no more than 0.1 m in depth”, as a trial
limitation, for the purposes of the April public
consultation.
E.13.5
Additional information
HCC
Additional information:
(d) a heritage impact statement;
(e) a statement of compliance;
(f) a statement of archaeological potential;
(g) an archaeological impact assessment;
(h) an archaeological method statement;
Making these requirements non-mandatory is supported.
However, except for a ‘heritage impact statement’ in Special
Provisions 9, those highlighted above do not appear in the
Code other than here and in 13.3.1. With no ‘Acceptable
Solutions’ proposed it means that a planning authority that
seeks to be both prudent and consistent will always request
this information. This is a significant cost impost as the HCC
has found with the operation of its clause F.5.1 that is
essentially a statement of compliance. In the absence of the
detailed work that to ascertain where there are Places of
Explanation:
Intention is to provide councils with the flexibility to
determine when such reports are necessary.
It is not intended that such reports would be required in
every case. If this were intended they would be
referred to in the Performance Criteria.
The purpose of listing and defining the type of
‘additional information’ that a council may require is to
put some bounds on this aspect of the development
application process. The two alternatives are:
196
•
•
To require all applications to provide a
particular report (by reference in a PC);
To not define any additional information and
defer to an ‘unbounded’ situation under clause
8.1.2 of the Template.
Planning authorities should seek to be ‘reasonable’, as
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Archaeological Potential there will either be an absence of
Places identified in Table E.13.4 or the risk of the default of
every Heritage Place and even every property in a Heritage
Precinct being listed . This is a potential dilemma.
well as prudent and consistent.
The lead-in to this clause is to be revised to make clear
the additional information needs to be ‘necessary’.
(See below also)
E.13.5.1
Additional information
HT
While the information listed makes sense, there is also a need
to be fair, reasonable and pragmatic about the need to present
or prepare these items. The onus of owners of places listed in
a Code should be limited and not excessive. There remains a
query about who determines what might be needed. We
recognise that the provision says “may require”, but our
concern is that it is too easy for this to become the norm when
such documentation may not be justified.
Concerns noted:
This is a difficult issue for planning schemes to grapple
with.
One alternative is to mention these studies in the
standards themselves, but then they become
mandatory in all cases.
Another option is to not mention them at all, which then
leads to potential for more variance between councils
(some ‘over the top, others not enough).
By specifying potential additional information, the code
is attempting to limit it to a defined, limited set.
If each council’s planning scheme does this
consistently with other council planning schemes, it
then becomes possible for the councils to collectively
develop ‘practice notes’ to assist in consistent (and
hopefully sensible) requests for further information.
This is less possible if schemes are silent on the
matter.
(See above also)
E.13.5.1
Additional information
HT
We feel that the need for both a heritage impact statement and
a CMP is excessive for local listings.
Explanation:
These additional information requirements are up to
the judgement of planning authorities.
(See above comment)
E.13.6.1
Use Standards.
Adaptive Reuse
CCC
Instead of providing for adaptive reuse through a clause in
Section 9, suggest provide for it under Use Standards.
(Proposed wording provided by CCC)
Not agree.
The provision is to be in Section 9, because:
The code does not apply to places listed on the
Tasmanian Heritage Register only (i.e. not in the
197
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
planning scheme).
Also; the code (optionally) does not apply to ‘dual
listed’ heritage places.
However, the adaptive reuse provisions are intended
to apply to both THR listed places and planning
scheme listed places.
Section 9 is the only part of the scheme powerful
enough to achieve all of the above.
E.13.7.1
Demolition
CCC
Suggest add:
“(c)
important structural or façade elements that can
feasibly be retained and reused in a new structure, are to be
retained.
(d)
the construction is documented before demolition.”
Agree.
Adopt suggested wording, or similar.
E.13.7.1
Demolition
PAHSMA
We suggest there is the potential for misuse of the code with
the inclusion of wording such as “...unless there are
environmental, social, economic or safety reasons that
override the value of the place to the community and there are
no prudent or feasible alternatives’’. This provides an ‘out
clause’ which has been debated in various planning
amendments across the country and I know has caused
Australia ICOMOS some angst over the years – it is a
particular issue in NSW at the moment. By including ‘economic
and safety reasons’ it allows a determined owner to let a place
deteriorate to such an extent that they can quite validly then
proceed with its demolition. The challenge then lies in the
process which allows for an informed and objective decision
that the reasons listed for demolition are valid, or rather the
outcome of deliberate negligence. The economic argument is
similarly fraught.
Explanation:
This PAHSMA comment refers to an earlier version of
this clause.
Clause was modified in an attempt to ensure it is
community value weighed against community value,
and not against private costs.
There needs to be some ability for over-riding
community value to allow the demolition of the heritage
place.
The principle is that no one value should be above all
others.
E.13.7.1
&
E.13.8.1
HT
Two comments re demolition. Firstly, we think the term
“exceptional circumstances” needs to be defined in the Code,
otherwise you run the risk of the provision being challenged in
the Tribunal. One option may be to link this provision directly to
Explanation
This particular HT comment refers to an earlier version
of this clause.
198
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Demolition
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
the Performance criteria. We also wonder whether it is too
strict that at P1 need to provide that the demolition was needed
for BOTH safety reasons and meeting prudent and feasible
alternatives. Our experience suggests the TFS might have
something to say about that.
Clause was modified to remove ‘exceptional
circumstances’ phrase and provide more direction.
E.13.7.2 (b)
Buildings and works
HT
Objective:
We wonder if people really know what “dominant
characteristics” entail (ie: Does a weatherboard outbuilding
have “dominant characteristics”).
Agree.
(This has been changed already)
E.13.7.2 P1 (b)
Buildings and works
HCC
Protection of streetscape elements.
This is reasonable as PC to protect the mature landscape but
the ambit of the template in 6.3.1 and the 6.3.2 a) ii) would
seem to catch even gardening in its ambit
Explanation:
The effect of 6.3.1 and the 6.3.2 (a) (ii) is to leave
these items open to control by the heritage code.
E.13.7.2 P2
Buildings and works
HCC
Suggested re-write of clause. (Draft words provided by HCC)
Agree.
E.13.7.2 P2
Buildings and works
CCC
Suggest change ‘subservient’ to ‘complimentary’
Agree – in part.
Needs to be ‘complimentary’ but also ‘subservient’
E.13.7.2 P2
Buildings and works
CCC
Suggest delete “(c) set back further from the front boundary”
Agree – in part.
But need a suitable replacement.
It may not always be necessary to set back further
from front boundary.
E.13.7.2 P3
Buildings and works
CCC
Suggest add as follows:
Materials, built form and fenestration must respond to the
dominant heritage characteristics of the place but must not be
confused with the original fabric.
Agree.
Adopt suggested wording or similar.
E.13.7.2 P3
Buildings and works
HT
Talks about heritage characteristics where elsewhere the Code
talks about heritage values – It might be useful to review the
draft to ensure consistent use of such terms.
Agree.
Ensure terminology is the same throughout.
E.13.7.2 A5
CCC
Suggest delete the AS (that allows for front fences in
accordance with original design where based on photographic,
Not agree.
199
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Buildings and works
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
archaeological, historical evidence) and provide for no
acceptable solution.
Whilst the proposed AS may not be inarguable in some
cases, it should be sufficiently certain in enough cases
to warrant an AS.
E.13.7.3
TPC
E.13.0 Local Heritage Code – E.13.7.3 Subdivision standards
are inconsistent with subdivision definition in Part 4 which
relates to a “lot”.
The Code envisages that a heritage place’ may extend beyond
the title boundaries’.
Suggest new drafting instructions to ensure ‘extent’ of listing in
Tables relates to property – and therefore provide for
transparency in extent of listing as well as consistency with
definition of subdivision.
Explanation.
The default extent of a listed place is the title
boundaries (the title as of at the date the scheme
comes into effect). The Code, however, provides for
explicit departure from the title, which must be clearly
described.
For example, a 200 hectare rural title should not be the
extent of the listing of the heritage house upon it, which
should be much smaller.
A subdivision involving the back of the title far from the
heritage house should not trigger the Heritage Code.
The mechanics of the Heritage Code attempts to avoid
this situation.
E.13.7.3 P1 (d)
Subdivision
HCC
Suggested addition to clause:
(d) an increased likelihood of future development in close
proximity that is incompatible with the historic cultural heritage
significance of the place as a result of lot size, configuration
and potential development density and building height.
Agree.
E.13.7.3 P1 (d)
Subdivision
HT
Need to tighten up “likelihood of future development in close
proximity” – to what? How close is close? This introduces the
prickly thorn of curtilage.
Explanation:
This would have to be considered on a case by case
basis.
It is noted that the Table of listings allows for a spatial
extent of a listing to be specified as something other
than the title. Therefore, for very large rural properties
the extent of the listing might be ‘within 100 metres’ of
the main house. This would reduce the number of
unnecessary planning applications.
200
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
E.13.8.1 P1 (a)
Demolition (in precincts)
CCC
Suggest change to:
“(a)
buildings or works that are integral contribute to the
historic cultural heritage significance of the precinct;”
Agree.
E.13.8.1 P1
Demolition (in precincts)
(Proposed new)
CCC
Suggest add a new sub clause to (b)
“(iii)
An opportunity is created for a replacement building
that will be more complimentary to the heritage values of the
streetscape and the area.”
Agree.
E.13.8.2 P3
Buildings and works in
precincts
HT
Refers to extensions to the front. Presume extensions to the
rear suitably covered by P1.
Explanation.
That is what is intended.
E.13.8.2 A4
Buildings and works (in
precincts)
Front fences
CCC
Suggest deletion of the AS (allowing for re-establishment of
original-design front fences)
Not agree (see similar comment above)
E.13.8.2 P4
Buildings and works (in
precincts)
Front fences
CCC
Suggest amendments to PC
Agree.
Adopt suggested wording, or similar.
E.13.8.2
Buildings and works (in
precincts)
(Proposed new)
CCC
Suggest addition of a substantial new PC (draft wording
provided by CCC) covering a broad range of issues.
Not agree.
These words (or similar) should be used in the ‘design
criteria’ column in the Table for heritage precincts.
This is because a tailored approach to these provisions
may be desirable for individual precincts.
E.13.9 - Objective
Cultural Landscape Precincts
HT
Objective should also refer to landscape features seeing this
section is about cultural landscape features. I presume given
the rural aspects this might include both natural and
constructed landscapes.
Agree.
Include suggestion.
E.13.9.1 P1
Cultural Landscape Precincts
HT
We question if this should also include walls (eg dry stone
walls?) [and same issue here with E.13.7.1]
Agree.
Include suggestion.
201
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
E.13.9.2
Cultural Landscape Precincts
HT
There appears to be no reference here to landscape elements,
only buildings. We think assuming that landscape elements
are covered off by “works” might end up in loss of values.
Some people might assume that you don’t do “works” to
landscape elements because the code consistently refers to
“buildings and works” throughout the whole document.
Agree.
Include suggestion.
E.13.10.1
TPC
E.13.10.1 Building, Works and Demolition
Standard applies to demolition only, not building and works.
Add standards or redraft Title and Objective.
Agree
Review.
E.13.10.1 P1
HT
The requirement to meet “all” of the criteria seems to be
excessive and nonsensical. You either have (a) actual
archaeological resources or (b) potential archaeological
resources. Then once you have either of those (but obviously
not both cause with potential ‘you don’t know what you don’t
know’) the applicant would have to meet “all of” (c) and (d) and
(e).
Agree
Review.
E.13.10.2
Subdivision
HT
Subdivision – this is tricky. I can’t see how a ‘line on a map’
has any impact on archaeological potential. It is what happens
after the subdivision that is the issue.
Acknowledge.
E.13.10.2 A1
Subdivision
HCC
Question the AS if subdivision provides for building exclusion
envelope over a listed Place of Archaeological Potential:
This doesn’t provide what the evidential basis for the
envelopes must be NB archaeological impact assessment,
archaeological method statement, statement of archaeological
potential and perhaps a conservation place as well as a
statement of compliance.
There are obviously going to be widely varying situations. In
order more dense urban areas; some will involve subdivision
along the footprints of existing buildings others will involve the
re-configuration of the curtilage of a Place. Again, planning
authorities will be required to exercise their judgement under
E.13.5
Explanation:
Intention is to provide a simple, clear and
unambiguous AS, as per PAN13 Drafting Instructions.
Intention is that, if a subdivision protects a listed site by
creating a building restriction envelope on the site – as
it is defined in Table 13,4, then no investigation is
necessary and the process meets the requirements of
an AS.
If any ‘investigation’ is necessary, compliance with the
AS is not possible and the proponent must seek to
satisfy the PC.
202
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Table E.13.1
Places
‘General Description’ column
HCC
This is a mandatory field, but in Hobart’s case and possibly
other Councils there is no description for many of the entries
just a street address. This is going to require significant work to
identify and enter these. Also of more concern is the need to
avoid a change of use of a building triggering the need for a
planning scheme amendment albeit one under s37 assuming
the permit is taken up. Should consider this field as optional or
at least focus on the nature of the building rather than its
use/function.
Explanation:
General Description should not refer to use. It should
refer to the nature of the building – as HCC suggests.
It should be a simple description:
‘Georgian homestead with outbuildings’
“Federation house”
Regional Project would prefer this field to be
mandatory. If a planning authority has determined a
property should be listed it should be able to provide a
simple description.
Table E.13.1
Places
‘Specific Extent’ column
HCC
The specific extent perhaps should be presumed to be the
name/location and address as a default unless otherwise
stated
Correct. Refer notes to Table 13.1
Table E.13.1
Places
CCC
CC has deleted the following columns:
Not agree – in part:
Councils should at least include the CT. Without this
there is no legal definition of the exact spatial extent of
the listed area for each listing.
Councils servicing rural areas should include ‘specific
extent’ column to provide the option to specify the
extent of the listing to be something less than the title.
The other columns are optional and need not be filled
in.
•
Reference number.
•
C.T.
•
General description (but replaced by ‘site description’)
•
Specific extent
•
Particular exclusions from listing
•
Particular exempt development.
Table E.13.2 & E.13.3
Precincts
HT
It is suggested the header be “Design Criteria/Conservation
Policy”.
Agree.
Table E.13.4
Places Archaeological
Potential
HCC
To be listed it appears to require a fair amount of work to be
done. The SCPS 1997 actually lists places that are
Archaeologically sensitive. Discussion point : current F.5
CHPS 1982 to carry over into new scheme or rely on E.13.5
Application Requirements (Need to confirm whether or not this
does fall within Section 54 i.e. it isn’t information that is
essential to make an application valid or whether it does fall
Agree: Explanation:
This table (and associated standards earlier in the
code) should only be used by a Council if it has
identified places of archaeological potential. Therefore,
it needs to be regionally optional.
The Regional Project has no preference for
203
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
under s54 and is therefore appealable]
terminology re: “archaeological potential” or
“archaeologically sensitive”.
E.14.0 Significant Landscapes
Various typos, minor
amendments
HCC
Various typos and minor amendments noted by HCC
Agree.
Amend.
Name of Code
HCC
Suggest call it ‘Scenic Landscapes’
Agree:
Change name to ‘scenic landscapes’.
Relationship to Environmental
Management and
Environmental Living Zone
GCC
Question: Is it the intention to overlay the landscape code over
Environmental Management and Environmental Living zones?
Yes.
E.14.2.1 (b)
Application
GCC
Scenic Landscape Corridors.
Should this be optional for councils who don’t have scenic
corridors?
Agree.
E.14.3
Terms and definitions
TPC
bushland
Should this also apply to native vegetation such as wetlands?
If so, is the term ‘bushland’ the right term? Or should it be
something like ‘native vegetation community’? And if so,
should it be the same definition as the one in the Biodiversity
code? If a different term is agreed to, then the term needs to
be changed throughout the Code.
Not agree.
This code is concerned with visual appearance.
Adopting ‘native vegetation community’ would infer a
range of values that are not intended to be regulated
by this code.
The newly defined term ‘native vegetation’, however,
should be used in the definition of ‘bushland’.
E.14.3
Terms and definitions
TPC
disturbance
(and)
disturbance of a native vegetation community
Definition for “disturbance” in E.13.0 Significant Landscapes
Code and “disturbance of a native vegetation community”
in E.10.0 Biodiversity Code (Textural application, with offsets)
are similar but inconsistent. Is this appropriate?
Review and redraft to provide consistency across the two
Codes.
Explanation:
Still need to terms if two separate concepts.
If so, there needs to be more difference between the
two terms.
This code is concerned with visual appearance values
only.
The biodiversity code is concerned with biodiversity
values.
204
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
E.14.3
Terms and definitions
GCC
landscape value
Given that landscape value is a known term that means much
more than scenic values only (e.g., to provide clean air,
habitat, biodiversity etc and on the assumption that those
things specifically are not considerations for the Landscape
Code, suggest that we change the term to ‘scenic landscape
value’, thus leaving the term ‘landscape value’ available to be
used for its common meaning if so required elsewhere in the
scheme.
Agree.
Change term to ‘scenic landscape value’.
E.14.3
Terms and definitions
TPC
landscape value
means the specific characteristics or features of a landscape
that collectively contribute to its value, as listed in Table E.14.1
to this code.
The term is defined in E.14.0 Significant Landscapes Code
(optional regional provision), and used widely in this Code.
Definition should be a mandatory regional provision, as the
term is used widely in standards in the Code. Drafting notes
state it is optional for a Council to define landscape value for
each landscape area or corridor by providing a table at the end
of the Code. However, there is no optional table included in
the Code.
Suggest redraft.
Agree.
Redraft.
However, a generic definition will have to be created to
apply to the general use of the term in the code.
If a Council chooses to provide specifics for ‘landscape
value’ in a table, then these should be separately
addressed in the body of the code.
(For example, the former might be ‘landscape value’,
the latter ‘landscape characteristics’, or similar).
E.14.3
Terms and definitions
HCC
Scenic landscape area
“ … dominated by bushland …”
This would prevent areas dominated by waterbodies from
being Scenic Landscape Areas. Aren’t there any landscapes in
the southern region that merit protection not dominated by
bushland that merit protection?
May be so.
May be appropriate to expand scope of ‘scenic
landscape area’.
Regional Project has no resources to consider this at
this point in time, however. The expansion beyond
bush-dominated landscapes would have significant
ramifications for the standards in the code and would
require careful consideration.
Reconsider following receipt of public comments and
receipt of intention from any Councils that they wish to
205
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
create scenic landscape areas on the coast not
dominated by bushland.
Note that ‘scenic landscape area’ and ‘scenic
landscape corridor’ are two different types of scenic
landscape. Only the definition of the former refers to
the being ‘dominated by bushland’.
Not also that the Heritage Code provides for cultural
landscape precincts.
E.14.3
Terms and definitions
GCC
Scenic landscape area
Why does a scenic landscape have to be dominated by
bushland etc, it could be the Derwent River, wetlands, or even
a traditional rural area with hawthorn hedges. Suggest that
the clause be rewritten to not include the types of values, other
than by reference to the map and Table E14.1
Suggest rewrite as follows:
Means an area of scenic value characterised by the Scenic
landscape values identified in Table E.14.1 and shown on the
Planning Scheme Maps as a Scenic Landscape Area.
Not agree – at present.
However, will need to modify if Councils make a local
policy decision to protect landscape values of Derwent
River, wetlands, etc.
The current intention is to allow the option for a scenic
landscape area to be created by overlay on maps
without necessarily specifying particular values in
Table E.14.1.
Note that the heritage code provides for recognition
and protection of cultural landscape precincts, (which
would cover traditional agricultural areas dominated by
hedgerows, for example)
E.14.3
Terms and definitions
GCC
Scenic landscape corridor
Suggested redraft to refer to values listed in table E.14.1
Not agree.
Current intention is to allow the option for a scenic
landscape area to be created by overlay on maps
without necessarily specifying particular values in
Table E.14.1.
E.14.3
Terms and definitions
GCC
Statement of (scenic) landscape significance
Are these values not listed in Table 14.1? Why does a suitably
qualified person have to ‘set them out’ again? Or are we
looking for something different? If so, be more prescriptive
about what we want in such a statement.
Not agree.
Current intention is to allow the option for a scenic
landscape area to be created by overlay on maps
without necessarily specifying particular values in
Table E.14.1.
Not also that it is optional for a council to ask for this
report. If the landscape values have already been set
206
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
out, it would be unreasonable for a Council to ask for
this report.
E.14.4.1 (a) (i)
Exemption for farming
activities.
HCC
Exemption (a)(i) appears to allow hedgerows and exotic trees
to be removed from SLC’s on agricultural land (which is
expected to cover a large proportion of SLC’s).
Agree.
SLCs (Scenic Landscape Corridors) will exist through
agricultural land. (If reflecting many current schemes,
they will run 100 metres either side of the main
highways.)
Code needs to be amended accordingly.
E.14.4.1 (c)
Exemption for fire hazard
management approved under
the planning scheme.
GCC
How does this work if the application for a bushfire hazard
management is part of the same application? Also, should a
bushfire hazard management plan be able to ‘as of right’
override landscape considerations, or, should a development
proposal be able to be refused if it unacceptably impacts on a
landscape value? This comes back to the question of how do
codes interact/can one code override another?
Explanation.
A planning application must satisfy all relevant parts of
the planning scheme.
It is quite possible for a new development requiring
clearing of vegetation for bushfire hazard reduction to
be refused on the basis that the impact on scenic
landscape is too great - pursuant to this code.
E.14.4.1 (f)
Exemption for fire hazard
management for existing
dwelling.
GCC
This process enables me to go to Tas Fire with a plan to
completely clear my entire 7 ha block for ‘bushfire hazard
management purposes’, it would give me nice views and
perfect fire hazard reduction. Tas Fire would approve it,
because they don’t have to consider landscape values and me
clearing my entire block would in fact achieve bushfire hazard
management. Pity that my property is subject to the landscape
code and that I could achieve adequate bushfire hazard
management without cutting down any trees.... As such, I
think that a bushfire hazard management plan that requires for
example cutting down of trees should not be exempted and the
planning scheme should provide the ability to consider the best
outcome that achieves both adequate landscape protection
and bushfire hazard management. It is noted however, that it
is not clear if the current machinery clauses enable the
relaxation of standards in one code, to enable compliance with
another code?
Agreed that the exemption needs to be rewritten.
The policy behind the redraft is proposed to be:
207
•
Nothing in a planning scheme should prevent the
creation of adequate bushfire hazard
management for a dwelling that existing before
the scheme came into effect.
•
Within areas where a council has determined to
recognise and protect scenic landscape values of
bushland, (or biodiversity re: the biodiversity
code), then clearing must be the minimum
necessary to provide adequate bushfire hazard
management.
•
Ideally, the above should be arranged through an
exemption and not require a planning approval
process (which would need to be ‘discretionary’
rd
and therefore subject to 3 party objections and
appeals and the subsequent delay may result in
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
loss of property or life).
E.14.4.1 (e)
Works to address
unacceptable risk
GCC
Question:
Who is the arbiter in this?
Answer:
The Council or other authority.
Change wording to specify this.
E.14.5.1
Application requirements
HCC
Requirement for ‘statement of landscape significance’
This probably isn’t warranted. If planning authorities are
responsible for identifying areas of landscape significance,
they should know why it is significant already. It should be
more about how the proposal impacts on the landscape
significance.
Not agree.
The code provides an option for landscape values to
be determined and included in a table to the code.
Therefore, some scenic landscape areas will not have
an articulation of their specific values in the scheme.
The decision to request a ‘statement of landscape
significance’ is optional, and up to the planning
authority to make a judgment during the initial
assessment of an application.
E.14.6.1
No use standards
GCC
Given that disturbance may be caused by use, it is considered
that there should be use standards in this code.
Not agree.
Disturbance causes by ‘use’ alone (i.e. without
‘development’) would generally be too insignificant
and/or too infrequent to warrant regulation of use.
With respect to scenic landscapes, it is judged that the
cost on the community of regulating use outweighs the
benefits.
E.14.7.1
Removal of Bushland and
other Vegetation from within
Scenic Landscape Areas
HCC
Suggested alterations to wording.
Agree
E.14.7.1
Removal of Bushland and
other Vegetation from within
Scenic Landscape Areas
GCC
Suggested alterations to wording to reorient towards
‘vegetation identified as having scenic landscape value’.
Not agree.
This relies on pre-identification of all the vegetation
having scenic landscape values and recording this in
the table to the code.
As indicated above, this is not the intent.
E.14.7.2 A1
GCC
Seen from where? E.g. a development may not be visible from
Not agree.
208
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Development not to be visible
from public places, etc.
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
the road adjoining the site, but may be highly visible from
general suburbia or Glenorchy CBD
Glenorchy CBD would qualify for inclusion in this
clause.
However, reduce words to simply ‘public spaces’.
E.14.7.2 P1
Development not to be visible
from public places, etc.
GCC
This is not the correct lead in, e.g, with this lead in a building
can sit on the skyline, have low roof lines but may be highly
reflective, painted in contrasting colours and have not a stick of
vegetation to soften it. Besides that, why should we allow
development on the skyline anyway?
Agree.
Add ‘as necessary’.
E.14.7.2 P1 (c)
Buildings to be below skylines
and ridgelines
GCC
This needs an explanatory drawing, the meaning as is, is
unclear, are we talking about the highest point of the building
to be lower than the highest point of the ridgeline or skyline (as
if you see it horizontally), or are we talking about it when you
look at it from a lower angle, that is, from downslope??
Note that we proposed definitions for these two terms, but that
the Commission has refused definitions for the north and that
the Macquarie dictionary does provide a definition for skyline,
but not for ridgeline.
Agree.
Add an explanatory diagram.
Note that TPC Committee has rejected scheme
definitions for both skyline and ridgeline on the basis
that the common meaning of the terms is sufficient.
E.14.7.2 P1 (d)
Vegetation for screening
purposes.
GCC
Should we provide for the possibility that the proposal may
include planting of new vegetation to minimise impact?
Not agree.
Scenic landscape areas deal generally with far-sighted
visual impact. Often, the viewing distance is in the
order of kilometres. Screening vegetation is more of
the nature of a forest. New vegetation would take
years to have an impact.
Furthermore; properties are most often large and
present alternative siting options.
If development would only be ok on a skyline if
vegetation were planted, it probably should not be
allowed.
E.14.7.2 P2
One or more, or all of, the
following …
GCC
Suggest the lead-in to the subclauses should be ‘all of’ instead
of ‘one or more of’
Agree – in part.
But say “as necessary”
May be able to protect scenic landscape value by
satisfying only some.
209
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
E.14.7.2 P2
Transparent appearance of
fences
GCC
Generally transparent’ is too broad a description. Change to
‘similar transparent appearance’
Agree.
E.14.7.3
Removal of Bushland and
other Vegetation from within
Scenic Landscape Areas
GCC
Suggested alterations to wording to reorient towards
‘vegetation identified as having scenic landscape value’.
Not agree.
This relies on pre-identification of all the vegetation
having scenic landscape values and recording this in
the table to the code.
As indicated above, this is not the intent.
E.14.7.3 A1
The pertinent ‘major’ road
GCC
What is a major road? And why limit the concern to major
roads anyway? Conceivably a council could choose to have a
scenic landscape corridor along minor roads, e.g. tourist
routes. In this context the term ‘pertinent identifies the road to
which it refers.
Agree.
Change ‘pertinent major road’ to ‘pertinent road’, (in all
instances).
Note: Scenic landscape corridors aligned along
specified roads. It is up to each planning authority to
determine which roads. Similar 100 metre-wide
corridors already exist in current schemes along the
Midland Highway, Tasman Highway, etc.
E.14.7.4 A1 & P1
Service infrastructure.
GCC
If infrastructure is a consideration under the PC, [subclause
(f)], than it must also be considered under the AS.
Suggest add:
“ … and works do not involve new service infrastructure such
as drainage, water, electricity and sewerage or wastewater
treatment that would be visible from the pertinent road.”
Not agree.
Maintenance and repair of existing infrastructure is
generally exempt from the planning scheme (clause
5.4 of the Template).
Provision and upgrade of infrastructure is exempt
except within a heritage precinct, (clause 6.2.1 & 6.2.2
of the Template).
Scenic landscapes are not heritage precincts. (The
regional heritage code provides planning authorities
with the mechanism to recognise rural areas as
heritage landscape precincts).
Therefore, delete reference to service infrastructure in
the PC, and do not add the suggested wording to the
AS.
E.14.7.3 P1 (e)
GCC
Should we provide for the possibility that the proposal may
Agree.
210
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Vegetation for screening
purposes.
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
include planting of new vegetation to minimise impact?
Scenic corridor areas deal generally with shortmedium-sighted visual impact. The viewing distance is
in the order of tens of metres. New screening
vegetation could have a positive impact, and may be
the only option.
GCC
If infrastructure is a consideration under the PC, [subclause
(f)], than it must also be considered under the AS.
Suggest add:
“ … and works do not involve new service infrastructure such
as drainage, water, electricity and sewerage or wastewater
treatment that would be visible from the pertinent road.”
Not agree.
Maintenance and repair of existing infrastructure is
generally exempt from the planning scheme (clause
5.4 of the Template).
Provision and upgrade of infrastructure is exempt
except within a heritage precinct, (clause 6.2.1 & 6.2.2
of the Template).
Scenic landscapes are not heritage precincts. (The
regional heritage code provides planning authorities
with the mechanism to recognise rural areas as
heritage landscape precincts).
Therefore, delete reference to service infrastructure in
the PC, and do not add the suggested wording to the
AS.
E.14.7.4 P1 (e)
Vegetation for screening
purposes.
GCC
Should we provide for the possibility that the proposal may
include planting of new vegetation to minimise impact?
Agree.
Scenic corridor areas deal generally with shortmedium-sighted visual impact. The viewing distance is
in the order of tens of metres. New screening
vegetation could have a positive impact, and may be
the only option.
Table E.14.1
TPC
Table E.14.1 referenced by E.13.3 (Significant Landscapes
Code) Definition of Terms – Landscape Value
Table is missing from Code and is inconsistently numbered.
Insert Table and review numbering (Code requires
Explanation:
The table and the definition are optional.
E.14.7.4 A1 & P1
Service infrastructure.
E.14.7.4
211
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
renumbering also).
Table E.14.1
GCC
Suggest that we use the same approach/format/ layout etc as
is used in the local heritage Code, that is, the table should
include a reference number that identifies individual specific
individual areas and those areas should be mapped. Suggest
that the number includes the Code prefix, e.g for an area
identified by the landscape code, the reference number would
be E.T.14.1.X, for a heritage precinct it would be E.T.13.2.X,
for a place of archaeological significance it would be
E.T.13.4.X etc, where E identifies it as a Code, T identifies it as
a table, in the case of the heritage Code, the 13, identifies it as
such, and X is the specific site or area reference number.
Not agree – in part.
Intention is to allow the option for a scenic landscape
area to be created by overlay on maps without
necessarily specifying particular values in Table
E.14.1.
Councils to add their own table.
Scope of code
KC
E.15.2 (c) – the Code doesn’t address buildings and works
other than those identified as being dependent on a coastal
location in the Code or unless within an inundation or erosion
hazard area eg dwelling involving clearing of vegetation or
works within x distance of the coast or located in the coastal
area. The implication is that if it isn’t coastal dependent and is
located outside high hazard areas the Code does not apply
and there are no controls in relation to visual amenity, coastal
processes, coastal vegetation.
Rephrase E.15.2(c) to state ‘development of buildings and
works in the coastal area’ rather than restrict only to those
dependent upon a coastal location.
AND
Include E.15.10 ‘Development Standards for Buildings and
Works in a Coastal Location and not Dependent on a Coastal
Location’ and include performance criteria relevant to buildings
such as dwellings.
Not agree – in part.
This is a hazards code, not a values code.
The values identified in the comment should be
covered by the planning scheme, but in another
section, such as expanded wetlands & watercourses
code, or a specific coastal values code.
This code will only apply within the overlay shown on
the planning scheme maps (the hazard areas).
Reference to a code applying in the ‘coastal area’
would need to defined what the ‘coastal area’ is –
preferably through an overlay, or by a v=horizontal and
vertical distance from high water mark.
The reference to development dependent on a coastal
location is intended to enable special consideration of
such development that would otherwise be prohibited
by the code.
Scope of code
KC
Stormwater management not captured by the Code
Noted.
E.15.0 Coastal Hazards
212
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Stormwater management currently included in
Infrastructure code.
Various typos, minor
amendments
HCC
Various typos and minor amendments noted by HCC
Agree.
Amend.
Identification of hazard areas
HCC
The Hazard Areas and their identification is essentially a
process outside the planning scheme. Does this need some
explanation, somewhere?
Agree.
A (non-statutory) footnote could be included.
E.15.3
Definition - Spatial application
of code
KC
Recommend inclusion of a definition of coastal location or
coastal area otherwise too uncertain as to when it applies
Not agree.
There is no uncertainty. The code only applies in the
overlay areas shown on the map.
As mentioned above, a code dealing with coastal
values is desirable and would address this comment. It
would need to define ‘coastal location’.
E.15.3
Definition - buildings or works
dependent on a coastal
location
KC
Definition of buildings or works dependent on a coastal location
doesn’t include jetties, marinas, slipways, dredging etc but
these are identified as buildings or works dependent on a
coastal location in E.15.9.1 A1
No agree.
Definition includes these structures.
E.15.3
Terms defined but not used in
code
TPC
coastal dune system
means the beach system comprised of the beach, any incipient
foredune, the established foredune and any hind-dunes, as
illustrated in the figure below
hind dune
means one or more sand dunes behind the established
foredune.
The terms are defined in E.15.0 Coastal Hazards Code, but
then not used in the Code.
Does not add further meaning to scheme requirements.
Suggest delete.
Agree
Delete.
(Subject to the terms remaining unused in the redraft
of the code).
E.15.3
TPC
coastal areas
Explanation:
The phrase ‘coastal areas’ is meant to be taken in its
213
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Terms and definitions
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
(and)
coastal location
The term ‘coastal areas’ is used in the purpose statements
E.15.1 (b) and (c). The term ‘coastal location’ is used in
application clause E.15.2(c) and in E.15.3 in the definition for
‘buildings and works dependant on a coastal location’.
A definition is necessary in the Code and review for
consistency across other provisions.
‘plain English’ sense. The spatial area to which the
code applies is specified by virtue of the spatial
overlays, being the Coastal Inundation High, Medium
and Low Hazard Areas, General Hazard Area and the
Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. Therefore, there
appears to be no need to define ‘coastal areas’ as
used in the purpose statement.
The phrase ‘dependant on a coastal location’ is used in
clause 2.1.6 of the State Coastal Policy which provides
for special consideration and allowance for such
development. It is important to replicate this term to
provide a clear linkage of intent.
E.15.3
Terms and definitions
HCC
Definitions need for:
‘storm tide’ or ‘storm surge’
‘wave run-up’
Agree.
Requires discussion with DPAC.
E.15.4.1
KC
Exemption should refer to appropriate coastal protection works
Not agree.
Public authorities should be considered responsible
authorities. Adding the term ‘appropriate’ creates too
much uncertainty for an exemption.
E.15.5 (f)
TPC
Application Requirement E.15.5 (f) not reflected in E.15.2
Application.
There is no trigger in the Code for nearby properties to be
necessarily affected by this Code although this is an
application requirement in E.15.5 (f). Suggest revise/redraft.
Explanation:
The code is not meant to impact properties nearby to
the overlay. It may be the case, especially in the
overlay generated for the non-LIDAR areas, that
uncertainty exist as to whether the development site is
in the overlay.
Nevertheless, redraft of words appropriate. See below.
E.15.5 (f)
HCC
Redraft words for (f) suggested.
Agree
Adopt same or similar.
E.15.7.1 P1
KC
States that there are no performance criteria except if
dependent upon a coastal location but it does not provide any
performance criteria or clearly link to the performance criteria
Not agree.
The function of A1/P1 is to prohibit habitable buildings
within the high hazard area. With the exception of
214
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
in E.15.9. If there is not intended to be any performance criteria
and satisfying the standard is simply a matter of being
dependent upon a coastal location then the performance
criteria need to clearly articulate this. A test that the buildings
or works cannot be located outside a Coastal Inundation High
Hazard Area should also be included as just because
something is dependent upon a coastal location this does not
mean it has to be in a Coastal Inundation High Hazard Area.
those dependent on a coastal location.
For those dependant on a coastal location, they then
have to satisfy all the standards for buildings
dependent on a coastal location, E.15.9. This clause
includes the test that there is a demonstrated need for
the coastal location.
The function of A1/P1 would be more transparently
provided by a Use Table in the code. However, TPC
direction is that codes are not to include Use Tables.
E.15.7.2 P1
KC
If the performance criteria do not apply if it is a building
dependent on a coastal location, then should this be the
acceptable solution?
Should there also be a requirement that there is no alternative
coastal location outside a Coastal Inundation Medium Hazard
Area?
Not agree.
There should be no AS for a new dwelling on the
medium hazard area.
There should be not be a requirement for alternative
location outside medium hazard area. This will be selfregulating to a degree. If a title also includes land in
the low hazard area (or land outside all hazard areas)
it will be easier to obtain planning permit in these
areas.
E.15.7.2
P2 (b) – (f)
and
P4 (c)-(j)
TPC
Similar standards as for high hazard areas P2 (b) – (f) is the
same as 15.7.1 P2, yet they do not relate to the objective for
medium hazard areas.
Review.
Agree
Review in consultation with DPAC hazards policy unit.
E.15.7.1
E.15.7.2
E.15.7.3
TPC
Objectives E.15.7.1, E.15.7.2, E.15.7.3 Development
Standards for Buildings and Works within the Coastal
Inundation … Hazard Area
Objective only relates to ‘habitable buildings’, when standards
include: outbuildings, new dwellings and habitable buildings
other than a dwelling. Revise.
Agree
Reword so that it is clear the standard addresses nonhabitable buildings (i.e. outbuildings) as well.
E.15.7.1
HCC
Repairs and minor alterations to existing buildings should have
the potential for approval in these areas (high hazard areas)
Explanation:
General Exemption 5.5 provides for repairs.
Not sure what is meant by ‘minor alterations’.
215
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
E.15.7.2 P1(g), P2(e) & P4(h)
15.7.3 P1(f), P2(e)
15.8 P1(f)
TPC
Query whether PC stating ‘public foreshore access is
maintained’ is relevant to objective?
Suggest delete irrelevant PCs.
Agree
Codes should clearly separate hazard management
from values management. They should be one or the
other. The issue identified is to be placed in a values
code.
E.15.7.3 P1
TPC
PC do not relate to the development standard objective or the
AS. Revise.
Agree
Revise and delete irrelevant provisions.
E.15.7 and E.15.9.
TPC
Operability issue between clauses 15.7 and 15.9.
E15.7 relates to habitable buildings –new or extensions are not
allowed. Therefore, not necessary to state ‘except if
dependent on a coastal location’ with footnote. [NB clause
E.16.9.1 should read E.15.9].
Footnote is referring to another clause – query whether this is
in fact directing how to interpret this clause?
Suggest delete ‘except if dependent on a coastal location’ from
P1.
Not agree, generally:
Explanation:
The provision is attempting to say that habitable
buildings generally are not allowed. The only might be
allowed if ‘dependant on a coastal local’.
Clause 2.1.6 of the State Coastal Policy places priority
on use and development ‘dependant on a coastal
location’, hence the use of this phrase in the draft
code.
Nevertheless, some rewording may be appropriate.
E.15.8.1 P1
KC
Should include performance criteria that the buildings or works
cannot be located outside a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area
should also be included as just because something is
dependent upon a coastal location this does not mean it has to
be in a Coastal Inundation High Hazard Area.
Eg there is a no feasible alternative coastal location outside a
Coastal Erosion Hazard Area.
Agree.
Include test to demonstrate need to be located in a
coastal location.
This is because it is possible land may be in a Coastal
Erosion Hazard Area but not in a Coastal Inundation
High Hazard Area.
E.15.9.1 P1 (f) & (h)
and P2 (b) & (e)
E.15.9.1 P3(f)
TPC
‘Impact on visual amenity’
and
‘provide habitat for flora and fauna as appropriate’
are not issues related to the purpose of the Coastal Hazards
Code.
Redraft.
Agree.
Codes should clearly separate hazard management
from values management. They should be one or the
other. The issue identified is to be placed in a values
code.
216
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
E.15.9.1 A2
HCC
Dredging:
This PC does not clearly require consideration of the
environmental impacts associated with dredging (e.g.
destruction of flora and fauna, destruction of habitat, resuspension of potentially-contaminated sediments) and
reclamation (destruction of habitat, use of contaminated
material). These issues would only be picked up under the
maximum version of the Biodiversity Code, and the Waterways
Code doesn’t apply below the high tide mark of tidal waters.
Explanation:
These matters should be covered in the planning
scheme, but not in a hazards code.
Proposed to include these matters in the wetlands and
watercourse code, expanded to include coastal issues.
Intention is to separate hazard management from
values protection into different codes
E.15.9.2
HCC
Redraft objective for this standard. Does not make sense.
Agree
Redraft.
E.15.10
(Proposed new)
KC
Include ‘E.15.10 Development Standards for Buildings and
Works in a Coastal Location but not Dependent on a Coastal
Location’ and include performance criteria relevant to buildings
such as dwellings.
For example: Buildings and works located in the coastal area
but not dependent on a coastal location must satisfy all of the
following:
(a) impact on visual amenity is minimised;
(b) impact on environmental values minimised;
(c) no practical alternative with respect to alternative building
locations on the site exist;
(d) where located on a mobile landform, it is a proposed
residential use or development infilling between
residences in existence prior to October 1996 and uses
all practicable methods to avoid modifying natural coastal
processes or increasing the need for protection from such
processes in the future.
Not agree.
This is a hazards code, not a values code.
The values identified in the comment should be
covered by the planning scheme, but in another
section, such as the biodiversity code or the wetlands
& watercourses code.
This code will only apply within the overlay shown on
the planning scheme maps (the hazard areas).
Reference to a code applying in the ‘coastal area’
would need to defined what the coastal area is –
preferably through an overlay.
The reference to development dependent on a coastal
location is intended to enable special consideration of
such development that would otherwise be prohibited
by the code.
Tables - Levels
HCC
Provisions of levels: will this be from the State?
Yes.
Tables - Levels
HCC
Do levels include wave set-up?
It is understood this is the case.
DPAC to confirm.
217
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
??? E.16.0 Coastal & Marine Development ??? (Merged with above??)
E.17.0 Signs Code
Template definition of ‘sign’
HCC
Template definition of ‘sign’ should exclude signs not visible
from a public place, (as per Sullivans Cove Planning Scheme
1997).
Agree.
Refer to TPC Committee for initial comment.
Pursue change during statutory hearings pursuant to
S.30L of the Act.
Various typos, minor
amendments.
HCC
Various typos and minor amendments noted by HCC
Agree.
Amend.
Complexity of code.
GCC
The code is significantly more complex when compared with
current provisions
The complexity appears to allow for confusion and potentially
would allow for ‘shopping’ where one definition would provide
different standards to another, or the use status may vary. It
is considered that this should be queried.
Explanation:
The code is derived from the current HCC approach. It
has therefore been well ‘road tested’ and the concerns
expressed by GCC appear not to be an issue.
Complexity of code.
Rural areas.
Regional
Project
(TRG
20/07/12)
Should the proposed regional Signs Code be simplified for
rural schemes?
It was agreed:
218
•
The proposed regional Signs Code does not need
to be simplified for rural schemes.
•
Suggested addition: ‘Inflatable Sign’
•
Suggested deletion: ‘Wall Mural’.
•
Suggested alteration: The word “use” in the
heading of Table E.17.3 (Use Status of Signs in
Zones), should be deleted, as the creation of
such signs would be both development and use.
Would be better to simply call it: “Status of Signs
in Zones”.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Coverage
BC
Does not seem to deal with signage around the boundary of
cricket and footy grounds. This is important in Brighton and has
come up before. (“Poster panel” sign appears to cover it, but
from the dimensions given this appears to only be applying to
billboards…?)
Further investigate.
Add a new sign type if necessary.
E.17.1.1 (a)
Purpose
GCC
The planning scheme can't nor should determine what level of
advertising would be 'essential'.
Suggest change to:
“(a)
provide for commercial advertising signage associated
with business activity;”
Agree
E.17.1.1 (b)
Purpose
GCC
Suggest change to:
“(b)
ensure that signs are well designed and maintained,
complement and enhance the streetscape and do not
contribute to visual clutter or impact adversely on residential
amenity;”
Agree
E.17.1.1 (c)
Purpose
GCC
Suggest change to:
“(c)
provide for signs which assist with way-finding and
pedestrian usability as part of a coordinated interpretative and
directional signage framework;”
Agree
E.17.1.1
Purpose
GCC
Do we need to have a purpose statement in relation to signage
associated with churches and other religious or political or
activist type signage? Or are they adequately provided for
under the general signage purpose statements?
Not agree.
Covered under the general signage purpose
statements.
E.17.2.1
Application of code.
HCC
New words for ‘application of code’ suggested as per HCC’s
legal advice.
Agree.
Modify as suggested.
E.17.3
Terms and definitions
HCC
New words for suggested for:
Agree.
Modify as suggested.
E.17.3
GCC
•
area
•
horizontal projecting wall sign
New sign definition suggested:
Consider further…
219
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
“Signboard
means any board, sign, plaque, or banner which in any way
makes an announcement or is an advertisement for any
restaurant, shop, place of business, product, wares or any
other thing which is not permanently attached to any building
or other structure and is located on a road.”
Other than the last 6 words, this definition is a copy from the
Glenorchy City Roads By Law. It is considered necessary for
Glenorchy to include this local definition to enable a suitable
exemption to be included in E 17.4. See also comment on
'Portable signs'.
Terms and definitions
E.17.3
Terms and definitions
GCC
Comments on a number of definitions.
Consider further…
E.17.4
Exempt signs
TPC
E.17.4 Use or Development exempt from this code
E.17.4.1….(b) the standards in Table E.17.2 and the
Acceptable Solutions in Clause E.17.5.1 are complied with;
Appears to provide directions for assessment following AS
pathway rather than an exemption - Assessment required to
determine exemption is too onerous?
Reference to clause E.17.5.1 is incorrect (should be E.17.6.1?)
Suggest delete E.17.4.1.
Not agree, in part.
It is considered important to define those signs that are
exempt from needing planning approval.
This means there will have to be some form of
assessment as to which is exempt and which isn’t.
Agree that reference is incorrect and needs to be fixed.
E.17.5
Application requirements
GCC
Suggest add:
(a)
dimensions for the sign, including height above natural
ground level
(b)
details of the sign’s wording, logos, colours, method of
illumination, supporting structure and method of fixing
Not agree.
This is basic application information and it is assumed
that all of this is a requirement pursuant to clause 8.1
of the Template.
The purpose of clause E.xx.5 of the regional codes is
to specify particular additional application requirements
that may be requested by the planning authority.
E.17.6.1 P2
HVC
Council’s and agencies should have the ability to coordinate
third party signage. A performance criterion at E.17.6.1 P2
could enable this.
???
220
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
E.17.7.1 A2 (a) and E.17.7.1
A2 (b)
HVC
Do E.17.7.1 A2 (a) and E.17.7.1 A2 (b) contradict each other?
I.e., if a business has two windows then only one could have a
Window Sign or else there would be a repetition of sign types
for that business?
Note sure????
E.17.7.1 A2
HVC
Clause E.17.7.1 A2 may benefit from a new subclause that
requires at least two of the sign types (if not all) to meet the
standards in Table E.17.2. Perhaps unlikely it could
nevertheless be possible that each of three permitted signs per
business could exceed the individual standard whilst meeting
this cumulative standard.
Not agree.
All signs must meet Table E.17.2 by virtue of E.17.7.1
A1 to remain ‘permitted’.
‘Umbrella Sign’
HVC
Make “Umbrella Sign” optional. Regulating umbrella signs
would be overly officious in most municipal areas.
Agree.
Draft code written for urban context. Option to reduce
scope would appropriate be for rural councils.
‘Wall Mural’
HVC
Make the defined term “Wall Mural” optional. It is clearly not
always associated with advertisement and therefore its
inclusion would be inconsistent with the purpose of the Code.
Agree.
Draft code written for urban context. Option to reduce
scope would appropriate be for rural councils.
‘Portable Sign’
HVC
Delete any reference to land tenure in the definition of a
‘Portable sign’ and also reference to by-laws, which should be
a footnote.
Agree.
Text or footnote can be reinstalled as local provision.
‘Window Signs’
HVC
Regulating ‘Window Signs’ appears to be overly officious and
should be optional. However, the standard that provides for
three signs per business per frontage would also require an
optional provision.
Agree.
Draft code written for urban context. Option to reduce
scope would appropriate be for rural councils.
Table E.17.3
HVC
The proposed Table E.17.3 may not be practical in its current
form. A sign does not have a use by itself. Rather, a sign is
development that must be assigned a use provided by the
Planning Scheme Template of Tasmania. The table could
purport to make an application for a particular sign type
permitted despite the use class associated with the zone being
discretionary or prohibited in the relevant zone. Alternative
terminology to describe what types of signs are appropriate in
Not agree.
It is not necessary for a sign to be assigned the same
use status as the use that it is advertising.
A change of use might be ‘permitted’ but a new sign for
that use might be ‘discretionary’, or vice versa. Either
way, opportunity for third party involvement and
potential for refusal only attaches to that which is
discretionary.
221
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
particular zones may assist to avoid confusion.
Table E.17.3
HVC
There are no criteria by which to exercise a discretion provided
by Table E.17.3. Determination of a discretion is limited to the
objective of clause E.17.6.1 and the purpose of the Code only.
Agree.
Consideration of the discretionary signs in Table
E.17.3 should include the performance criteria same
as, or similar to, E.17.7.1.
The intent is to provide adequate guidance for assessing
applications for wind and solar energy infrastructure,
something that is completely lacking under the current GCC
planning scheme.
It is considered that this code can‘t be supported without a
major rewrite.
The comments are noted.
E.18.0 Wind and Solar Energy Code
Major re-write needed
Cannot give blind support to
code.
Needs rethink.
GCC
HCC
KC
Consideration of significant redraft endorsed.
Background information available, but needs to be
collated.
There needs to be background documentation provided on this
with diagrammatic examples of the size of facilities identified
along with known explanatory information on key amenity
issues such as noise, shadow flicker and glare. Local
government will have to deal with these if they arise as
nuisance issues. This is in addition to as its planning authority
responsibilities, noting the very subjective performance criteria
set out for the various zones – NB 18.7.3 P2 - and lack of
guidance on evaluation and as seems likely (in the absence of
explanatory information) the need for and scope for
environmental impact assessments for discretionary
applications. Blind support for this Code is not appropriate or
desirable.
There is also a need for explanation of these standards in
relation to the Exemptions provided in 6.1.3 of the template,
which is not exclusive and might be considered to include
small rooftop wind generating devices.
The comments are noted.
Needs rethinking to tie in more closely with EPA assessment of
wind turbines
The comments are noted.
222
Consideration of significant redraft endorsed.
Background information available, but needs to be
collated.
It is noted that anything captured by 6.1.3 would be
exempt from the whole scheme, including this code.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Consideration of significant redraft endorsed.
Minor amendments
GCC
A range of minor amendments suggested.
Consider in redraft.
Remaining relevant
KC
As the technology is constantly shifting, the standards need to
remain relevant
Agree.
This issue should be subject of a standard state-wide
code that can be updated for all planning schemes
through one state amendment process.
Purpose
KC
Purpose includes minimising adverse impacts to the natural
environment but there are no performance standards to
achieve this.
It is assumed that if construction of the wind turbine required
vegetation clearance and/or disturbance this would be covered
in the Biodiversity Code (it certainly should be!).
However there are issues relating to threatened species,
particularly collision risk and disturbance from construction and
maintenance, which need to be captured in this Code.
Include performance standards along the lines of the attached
revised Code:
Explanation.
Vegetation clearance is controlled by biodiversity code.
Collision risk (birds, bats) with smaller scale wind
turbines should be a subject of a state policy position.
That is: below a certain size consideration of this
issues is unwarranted. This code is intended to deal
with smaller-scale wind turbines, of the size used in
domestic situations.
Larger scale wind farms should be subject to S.43A
applications. Collision risk should be part of this bigger
process.
When is a facility ancillary and
when is to a utility?
GCC
No guidance is provided on when an energy creating facility is
an ancillary use and when it becomes a utility.
Agree.
The intention of the code is to apply only where the
facility is ancillary to another use. It is not intended to
cover ‘wind farms’ as such.
The purpose of the code should be amended to clarify
this.
Scope of code.
GCC
The code is insufficiently scoped and includes ‘gaps’, e.g. it
provides for consideration of massive wind generation
developments and small ones, but effectively precludes
anything in between.
The codes does not provide for the consideration of
‘massive wind generation developments’, as these
would be Level 2 or 3 Activities.
EMPCA defines wind generation with a maximum
capacity of 30 megawatts or more to be a Level 2
Activity.
E.18.3
KC
Needs definitions of solar panel and wind turbine
Consider in redraft.
223
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Definition of terms
E.18.3
Definition of terms
DPIPWE
Needs definitions of solar panel and wind turbine
Consider in redraft.
E.18.7.1
Design and siting of turbines
…
TPC
E.18.7.1 – no AS or PC in order to effectively prohibit
development.
Elements of the standard do not relate well together or provide
clear rationale from code purpose through to AS and PC.
Query whether there is better mechanism to prohibit freestanding wind turbines in residential type zones?
May need to reconsider E.18.1 Purpose - Visual amenity
consideration included, but does not mention impact on
surrounding sensitive uses and overshadowing.
May need to mention minimisation of environmental amenity,
including noise emissions and electrical interference with
regard to unreasonable impact on nearby sensitive uses, plus
unreasonable overshadowing.
Not agree, in part.
The draft code has an implicit policy position that free
standing wind turbines (over the exempt size limit) are
inappropriate in urban zones.
If this policy position is agreed, then the issue
becomes: how does a code prohibit something? It
cannot have Use Table (as per TPC Committee
advise)
The draft code proposes to do this via no AS or PC in
certain zones in the use table Use Table.
The Regional project remains open to alternative
suggestions.
This raises a broader issue: If a code wants to prohibit
some form of use or development, how is that best
arranged?
E.18.7.1
Design and siting of turbines
…
DPIPWE
Rationale note: re: prohibiting free-standing wind turbines from
urban areas.
Not sure this assertion is backed up by experience in other
parts of the world.
This is indeed a policy position that require political
approval.
E.18.7.2
Height
KC
The heights of wind turbines are substantially lower than what
is often used commercially – need to review
Explanation.
Code intended to apply to smaller scale turbines.
Actual height figures provided in the draft are regional
optional.
E.18.7.2
Height
GCC
Inconsistent height with Telecommunications Code
The code is inconsistent in terms of height restrictions when
compared with the Telecommunications Code.
Agree, in part.
The heights provided in the Telecommunications Code
are option, meaning it is intended that individual
Councils choose their limits.
224
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
It is noted that telecommunications towers create less
visual impact than wind turbines, due to the animated
character of wind turbines and the fact the component
at the top of the tower is broader. It is not the case,
therefore, that the two should have the same height
limits.
E.18.7.2
Height
GCC
Height – where is it measured to?
Suggest delete ‘measures to either the top of a pole or tower
for a horizontal blade system or the highest point of a vertical
blade system”
and change to:
“The maximum height, including blades, above natural ground
level must be not more than: … “
Agree.
E18.7.2 P2 (b)(ii)
significant views
DPIPWE
How is “significant view” defined?
Explanation.
This is a difficult concept to specify / define.
E18.7.2 P2 (b)(iii)
uniformity of turbines
KC
The standards are biased towards protecting amenity and do
not necessarily facilitate appropriate wind and solar energy
eg E18.7.2 P2(b)(iii) requires uniformity of size when there are
multiple turbines but this may compromise efficiency.
Agree.
Consider revision.
E18.7.2 P2 (b)(iii)
uniformity of turbines
DPIPWE
E18.7.2 P2(b)(iii) requires uniformity of size when there are
multiple turbines.
The future of small-scale wind energy generation may involve
the use of a combination of turbine designs (including varying
sizes and shapes) in order to create more efficient arrays. This
restriction seems unnecessary.
Agree.
Consider revision.
E18.7.2 P2 (b)(iii)
uniformity of turbines
GCC
E18.7.2 P2(b)(iii) requires uniformity of size when there are
multiple turbines.
Are we talking here about wind turbines on one site or wind
turbines in the locality? Also, why should they all look the
same? I understand the concept to a degree, but we don’t do
that with any other buildings, rather, we value diversity. But
Agree.
Consider revision.
225
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
more importantly this restriction might prevent improvements to
wind turbine technology. For example if they improve the
technology and create a much smaller and funkier looking
turbine that generates more power than existing ones, this
clause would require the applicant to continue with old and
potentially out of date, technology. That is not considered to
be consistent with regional policy PI 1.2.
E18.7.3 P1 (b)(i)
minimising change to natural
and rural settings
DPIPWE
Does this apply equally to all public roads and all public land?
This would seem overly prescriptive – for example, there are
many areas of public land that are infrequently visited by
people and therefore visual impact is very low.
Agree.
Amend
E18.7.3 P1 (b)(ii)
minimising change to natural
and rural settings
DPIPWE
How is “impact” defined in this context?
Agree.
Amend to ‘visual impact’
E18.7.3 P1 (b)(ii)
minimising change to natural
and rural settings
DPIPWE
Being pedantic, but “skylines” are not topographical features –
they are a subjective based on viewfield (as opposed to a
ridgeline, which is a ridgeline no matter where you view it from.
Agree.
Amend to ‘skylines’.
E18.7.3 P1 (b)(v)
minimising change to natural
and rural settings
DPIPWE
Public land used for formal and informal recreation.
Question: By whom and how frequently?
Agree.
Too poorly definable. Delete.
E18.7.3 P1 (b)(vi) & (vii)
minimising change to natural
and rural settings
DPIPWE
These seem to be unnecessarily subjective in their
assumptions. Apparent regularity of spacing depends entirely
on the position of the viewer, and in any case not everyone
likes evenly spaced things. If the intention is to create
something visually acceptable then of course it will still be
subjective, but these provisions seem too subjective.
Agree
Delete
E18.7.3 P2
minimising change to natural
and rural settings
DPIPWE
Flicker, reflections, etc,
How would this be predicted? What methodology would be
used to estimate flicker and how is it defined?
????
226
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
E18.7.3 P2
minimising change to natural
and rural settings
DPIPWE
Definition of ‘unreasonable reflection’? Applies to (c) and (d).
Also need definition of “excessive” (e).
????
E.18.7.4 P1 (a)
rooftop mounted wind turbines
DPIPWE
Not sure how demonstrating efficiency is a planning issue?
And will the reverse also apply whereby for proposed buildings
it would have to demonstrated that they did not reduce the
operational efficiency of existing wind turbines?
Agree,
Delete.
E.18.7.4 P1 (c)
rooftop mounted wind turbines
DPIPWE
Significant views.
See above comments
Agree,
Delete.
E18.8.1
ground solar panels
DPIPWE
Why does the code only apply to ground mounted panels?
Is it the intention that the definition of panels in this case also
includes related infrastructure, such as reflectors? These are
likely to have more visual impact than the panels themselves.
To what zones would this apply? Restrictions on size, elevation
etc in some zones [eg rural] would prevent the creation of
larger solar arrays on private property where there is no
likelihood of impact on others. Furthermore, smart arrays are
potentially mobile (vertically and horizontally). This may result
in them being raised to capture more direct sunlight.
Agree.
Revise.
E18.8.1 A1
ground solar panels
GCC
They allow 4m high in the UK, at what height is it reasonably
possible to have a solar array?
Agree.
Revise to 4 metres
E18.8.1 P1 (a)
ground solar panels
GCC
What if it is of a reasonable distance, from public spaces,
would it still require screening??? Does it in a rural, rural res,
commercial or industrial setting have any more impact then
any other building? If not, why make it discretionary?
Agree.
Revise
E18.8.1 A2
ground solar panels
GCC
AS of 30 m2.
I can perhaps understand this limit in the general res and inner
res zones, but in just about all other zones this figure seems
very low. Is it sufficient to supply a single dwelling with all its
power needs? If not, I would suggest it needs to be increased.
Agree.
Revise.
227
Solar panels that operate schools signs, etc, should be
exempt under general/limited exemptions.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
What happens if a person puts up 2 or more arrays of 30m2
each? What if the property is large and there are various
arrays dotted across the property (e.g. rural properties with
arrays at individual pump stations)
What about solar panels on signs, such as at school
crossings? (or is that exempt under 6.2.2???
E18.8.1
ground solar panels
KC
The standards are biased towards protecting amenity and do
not necessarily facilitate appropriate wind and solar energy.
Standard around solar panels (E18.8.1) may also mean a
permit is required for a small panel to power a pump or electric
fence.
Agree.
Revise.
E.19.0 Telecommunications Code
Non-inclusion of EME
standard
GCC
EME or more correctly “human health” is not an objective yet
an EME report is required (similar except draft has objective
and no requirement and the existing Schedule has requirement
but no objective).
Agree:
The current draft includes a purpose statement
pertaining to ‘community health and safety’ but does
not include specific standards.
Delete this purpose statement.
Improvement over existing
telecommunications
schedules.
GCC
This proposed code doesn’t seem to hold a significant
advantage/improvement over the existing Schedule. In fact, it
may hold an inherent complication in that if there are
competing layers as I understand it (bushfire and fauna and
flora for example) and diametrically conflicting requirements, it
is unclear which is to take precedence or are any to take
precedence? How is that conflict to be resolved?
Explanation:
The draft is not intended to be an
advantage/improvement over existing
telecommunications schedules in current planning
schemes. Merely a regional standardisation in the
absence of a State code.
All codes must be complied with. It is not for one to
‘take precedence’ over another.
E.19.1.1 (b)
Purpose
GCC
What does this mean?”:
“(b)
encourage new telecommunication and digital facilities
to form part of a local or regional telecommunications network
Agree.
Subclause (c) referring to co-location of facilities – is
sufficient.
228
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
for all carriers;
Delete (b)
E.19.1.1 (d)
Purpose
GCC
(d) refers to ‘community health and safety’
Not sure if this purpose should be reworded as it seems to
imply that EME are somehow dealt with here when, in fact,
there are no Use Standards in this code relating to EME and a
tower’s use or performance. If it is referring to siting so as not
to interfere with traffic (which I think it isn’t) then suggest it be
rewritten to be more obviously relating to that siting
performance criteria. However, if EME is to be considered in
line with this purpose, it does not appear and it would certainly
be a “Use Standard”. Is it to be regulated through the federal
standard or is to be considered here?
Agree.
Not part of local government jurisdiction.
Delete d)
E.19.3.1
Definitions
GCC
‘Line’
Suggest amend to:
“means as defined in the Telecommunications Act 1997”
Agree.
E.19.3.1
Definitions
GCC
‘Telecommunications network’
Suggest amend to:
“means as defined in the Telecommunications Act 1997”
Agree.
E.19.4.1
Exemptions
GCC
The clause states that no development is exempt from the
code. The note then points out that:
“General Exemptions for minor telecommunication facilities are
provided in Clause 5.3”
This statement is in conflict with the very next statement.
Suggest that it be altered by adding “‘Except for minor
telecommunications facilities exempted by Clause 5.3’”
Not agree.
If something is generally exempt then a code does not
need to reiterate this.
General exemptions apply for the whole scheme,
including all codes.
If a use or development is listed in the general
exemptions, there is no need for the reader to look any
further into the planning scheme.
E.19.4.1
Exemptions
GCC
Suggest see NSW Department of Planning’s “NSW
Telecommunications Facilities Guideline Including Broadband
for its list of exemptions (if not used already) to see if any
others can be added.
Agree.
Investigate
229
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
E.19.5.1
Application requirements
GCC
The current GCC Schedule lists those things that should be
included in an application the draft Code doesn’t.
Agree – potentially
Other codes list specific additional expert reports that a
Council may require.
The Telecommunications Code may include such a
list. To be determined.
E.19.5.1
Application requirements
HCC
Suggest insert requirements similar to the information checklist
found in most current planning schemes.
Agree?
(may be appropriate just for this code)
E.19.6.1
Use Standards
GCC
There are no use standards for this code.
If there are no “Use Standards” does this mean EME is not
considered? Who does regulate this aspect of
telecommunications towers then? Also, while there may be no
use standards who ensures that the emissions signals,
depending on a combination of the site and signal strength, do
not affect aircraft transmission frequencies, airport and port
facilities’ communications?
Explanation.
Regulation of EME is not within the jurisdiction of local
government.
E.19.7.1 P1 (a)
Co-location requirements
GCC
The above is a good suggestion but may not be
enforceable...existing tower likely owned by separate operator.
What power exists to force the existing (approved) tower to be
pulled down and co-located with new tower?
Explanation:
The provision does not purpose to require an existing t
tower to be building down and co-located with new
tower.
E.19.7.1 A2
Co-location requirements
GCC
How do we establish this? Also, this is not measurable or
quantifiable, e.g. how many additional users, what are the
requirements of any potential additional users? Can we require
a developer to build capacity above his own needs? We can’t
do that with roads, so why can we do it with towers?
Agree with the sentiments made above and the proponent is
likely to respond by proposing a larger, higher tower to
accommodate an unknown number of future users. It also
raises issues of multiple owner access, shared maintenance
and commercial leasing by a tower “monopoly”...the owner of
the existing tower who we would force other operators to deal
with.
Acknowledge concerns raised.
E.19.7.1 is endeavouring to provide local government
with powers to force more co-location of facilities than
presently occurs.
The duplication and triplication of telecommunications
towers is a market failure that needs to be addressed.
230
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
E.19.7.2 P1
Visual amenity.
E.19.7.4 A1.
Access
TPC
E.19.7.2 P1 and E.19.7.4 A1.
Drafting requires clarification, must specify the means of
meeting the objective rather than repeating it.
Not agree re: E.19.7.2 P1. The PC elaborates on the
objective.
Agree re: E.19.7.4 A1. Delete whole standard.
Unnecessary.
E.19.7.2 A1 (a)
Visual amenity.
GCC
What is the definition of a “utility corridor”?
???
E.19.7.2 A1 (b)
Visual amenity.
GCC
What is a ‘neutral colour’? It would be better to say that it be of
a colour appropriate to the location to minimise the visual
impact. Should also be non-reflective.
Agree.
E.19.7.3 A1
Environmental values
GCC
A1 states:
“Telecommunications infrastructure must not be located in an
area of environmental significance.”
Is this considered by other codes such as the Biodiversity
Code, Landscape Code etc? This comes back to the issue of
how individual codes interact.
Explanation:
“Area of Environmental Significance” is a different
concept to other environmental considerations of the
planning scheme, and is defined in the
Telecommunications (Low-impact Facilities)
Determination 1997.
Codes don’t ‘interact’. It is simply the case that a
development must comply with all relevant codes.
E.19.7.3
E.19.7.4
E.19.7.5
TPC
E.19.7.3 Environmental values, E.19.7.4 Access, E.19.7.5
Significant Agricultural Land.
The standards are not derived from Code objectives.
Suggest provisions for Environmental values and Access
located in E.10 Biodiversity Code and E.6 Parking and Access
Code and for Significant Agricultural Land in relevant zones.
Review and delete or redraft objectives.
Not agree re: E.19.7.3 as ‘environmental values’ is a
term specific to telecommunications infrastructure.
Agree re: E.19.7.4. Delete whole standard.
Unnecessary.
Further discussion needed re: E.19.7.5. It would
appear there are equal reasons to include this
provision in the SAL Zone or the Telecommunications
Code. If keep in code, an addition to the purpose
statement for the code may be necessary.
General
GCC
A range of minor amendments suggested.
Consider in revision.
231
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
E.20.0 Acid Sulfate Soils
Need for Acceptable Solution
HVC
There should be the ability for an acceptable solution to
consider previous studies of the site or nearby land. For
instance, a house application may attract a dispersive soils
assessment report & and a shed or house addition at a later
point would attract a further report.
Not agree.
Acceptable solutions can not be based on reports from
suitably qualified persons.
However, the planning authority is at liberty to consider
a previous report as sufficient and not require more
information.
Note that the exemptions provide for dwelling
extensions and outbuildings in any case.
Various typos, minor
amendments
HCC
Various typos and minor amendments noted by HCC
Agree.
Amend.
Potential inaccuracies of
spatial data.
TPC
The Acid Sulfate Soils Code relies on overlay mapping being
available for each planning authority, with accurate data. This
should be reviewed to ensure sound operability of both Codes.
Agree.
Councils to review the State’s spatial information, at
local level, to gain an appreciation of its usefulness as
a statutory planning scheme overlay. Amend spatial
extent to take account of a Council’s local knowledge,
where necessary.
It is noted, however, that the code overlay is titled
‘potential acid sulfate soils’.
Code is intended to only be optional in the sense that
some municipal areas may not have any potential acid
sulfate soils.
No acid sulfate soils in
municipality
GCC
The GPS 1992 does not specifically identify Acid Sulphate
soils and, to our knowledge, we have no acid sulphate soils in
the municipality.
Explanation:
In 2010 the State launched new spatial information
pertaining to potential acid sulfate soils around
Tasmania. It is intended that this information form the
basis of the overlay associated with this code.
If there are no occurrences in a particular municipal
area, the Council would not need to include the code in
232
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
its planning scheme.
E.20.1 Purpose
DPIPWE
It’s interesting that the equivalent code for the Northern Region
(and presumably other codes developed through their process)
include an explicit reference to the mitigation hierarchy, viz.
The purpose of this code is to protect human health, the built
environment and the natural environment from the adverse
effects of disturbance of potential acid sulfate soils or acid
sulfate soils by:
(a) avoiding areas with potential to contain acid sulfate soils;
or
(b) where avoidance is not practicable, use or development
utilises appropriate measures to mitigate any adverse
impact.
Has any thought been given to embedding this principle in
codes?
Agree.
Modify purpose statement.
E.20.2.1 (a) & (b)
Application
DEP
Suggest additions to “below 20 m AHD”.
Not agree – pending consideration of the accuracy of
the potential acid sulfate soils mapping. If this excludes
land 20 m above AHD, then there is not need to
include this statement.
Also, if there are in-land areas of acid sulfate soil, such
a statement would exclude such areas from the
operation of the code.
E.20.2.1 (a)
Application
DPIPWE
& DEP
Suggest change ‘disturbance of’ to ‘excavation’.
Agree.
E.20.2.1 (c)
Application
DEP
‘drainage of groundwater’
Suggest change to:
“drainage affecting groundwater depth.”
Agree.
E.20.2.1 (c)
Application
HCC
‘drainage of groundwater’
This probably needs to be defined for clarity. Many
developments will use agricultural drain and similar behind
retaining walls, above buildings etc. Only drainage that lowers
Agree.
233
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
the water table is of concern.
E.20.2.1
Application
(Proposed new)
DEP
Suggest new subclause (d)
“d. dredging sediments from estuaries, coastal rivers, lakes,
dams and wetlands”
Not agree.
Dredging to be managed under a coastal code.
Legal question: can planning schemes cover dredging
off the coast? Legal advice is that development must
be connected to land …?
E.20.3.1
Acid sulfate soil management
plan
HCC
It would be preferable to use consistent terminology between
this Code and the Dispersive Soils Code (i.e. ‘management
plan’ vs ‘assessment report’).
Not agree.
Terminology is reflective of the terminology in the
relative DPIPWE guidelines documents.
E.20.3.1
Acid sulfate soil management
plan
HCC
Care must be taken with the use of ‘expose’ in this Code.
‘Expose’ could be read as being exposed to the open air (i.e.
uncovered or excavated) whereas it actually should mean
exposure to (higher concentrations of) oxygen which may
occur in situ (e.g. through changes in groundwater hydrology
or placement of loads above).
Noted.
E.20.4.1
Exemptions
HCC
ASS and PASS are not necessarily sub-surface soils and may
also be surface sediments (particularly in wetland and aquatic
environments).
Noted.
Nevertheless exemption clause (a) just refers to
exposure of sub-surface soils.
E.20.4.1
Exemptions
DEP
Include additional phrase as following:
“The following development is exempt from this code is >20 m
Australian Height Datum or land outside the Potential Acid
Sulfate Soil overlay or: …”
Not agree – pending consideration of the accuracy of
the potential acid sulfate soils mapping. If this excludes
land 20 m above AHD, then there is not need to
include this statement.
Also, if there are in-land areas of acid sulfate soil, such
a statement would exclude such areas from the
operation of the code.
E.20.7.1 A1
HCC
There is no AS in the draft.
There should be an acceptable solution where a PASS test
report indicates that the soils are not ASS or PASS. There
doesn’t appear to be a good reason to make the proposal
discretionary in situations where the soil is not ASS or PASS.
Not agreed.
The principle behind acceptable solutions is that they
are clear, simple and inarguable.
They cannot, therefore, reply on an expert report.
234
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
They can only reply on regulatory certificates and other
statutory approvals.
There is therefore significant reliance on the acid
sulfate soil overlay being reasonably precise.
E.20.7.1 P1
DPIPWE
Suggest add:
“Where use or development will, or is likely to disturb or
displace potential acid sulfate soil or acid sulfate soil, the
application is to provide an assessment report prepared by a
suitably qualified person which …”
Not agree – in part.
Drafting principle is that PCs do not refer to submission
of expert reports. This would make them mandatory in
all cases – an unacceptable import on some
development proposals.
The ability of Councils to require such reports is
contained within clause EX.5 of each code.
The “acid sulfate soil management report” defined in
clause 20.5.1 appears sufficient.
E.20.7.1 P1 (b)
DPIPWE
DEP
Suggest add to sub clause as follows:
“(b) the potential for those works to cause potential acid
sulfate soils to be exposed to air or oxidised;
Agree.
E.20.7.1 P1 (e)
DPIPWE
Suggest amend sub clause as follows:
(e) management measures consistent with the Tasmanian
Acid Sulfate Soil Management Guidelines (DPIPWE
2009) to reduce risk to an acceptable level.
Not agree.
Drafting principle is that PCs do not refer to submission
of expert reports. This would make them mandatory in
all cases – an unacceptable import on some
development proposals.
The ability of Councils to require such reports is
contained within clause EX.5 of each code.
The DPIPWE guidelines are foot-noted in that section.
Various typos, minor
amendments
HCC
Various typos and minor amendments noted by HCC
Agree.
Amend.
Potential inaccuracies of
TPC
The Dispersive Soils Code relies on overlay mapping being
available for each planning authority, with accurate data. This
Explanation:
E.21.0 Dispersive Soils
235
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
spatial data.
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
should be reviewed to ensure sound operability of both Codes.
This code is intended to be optional and used only in
those Council areas where there are significant areas
of highly dispersive soils. Otherwise, the issue can be
dealt with at the building approval stage. It is up to
each Planning Authority to determine if the issue is so
significant in parts of their municipal area that it need
to be dealt with at the development application stage.
No mapped date to support
the code.
GCC
It is considered that this code is insufficiently scoped.
The code would require mapping of information that we don’t
currently have.
Explanation:
This code is designed for those municipal areas in
which dispersive soils is a significant issue.
Councils that have no significant areas of highly
dispersive soils should consider not including this code
in their planning schemes.
E.21.1.1
Purpose
HCC
Risk to human life … ?
Is there realistically a risk to human life from dispersive soils?
Agree.
Delete reference in purpose statement.
E.21.1.1
Purpose
DPIPWE
Re: the drafting note: “This optional code allows a Planning
Authority with specific major dispersive soil problem areas to
require information as part of a development application and to
consider the issue within its overall determination”.
This is really important. Somewhere in the development
process the possibility that dispersive soils exist needs to be
identified. Currently there are no mechanisms to identify these
soils and make appropriate management actions.
Comment noted.
Note that the building approval / foundation
engineering part of the process should identify and
accommodate this issue where it is a low-to-medium
risk.
This code is intended to apply where the risk is high, to
provide for regulatory intervention at the statutory
planning stage.
E.21.2.1
Application
HCC
Could a trigger also be included for sites that are not mapped
but where dispersive soils are identified in a submitted report
(e.g. geotechnical assessment, site and soil evaluation)?
Not agree.
Application of code needs to be clear.
Minor-to-moderate dispersive soils issues will be dealt
with as a matter of course through the
building/engineering part of a development process.
The code is intended to be used only by those
Councils will severe dispersive soils areas where
consideration needs to be given during the planning
part of the process.
236
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
E.21.2.1
Application
DPIPWE
Mapping of overlay.
It is assumed that any such overlay will be based on geology
and soil mapping such as those presented in the ‘Dispersive
Soils and their Management Technical reference manual
(DPIPWE 2009)’. However dispersive soils have never been
specifically mapped in Tasmania. Consequently the current
layers can only be used for identifying at risk or higher risk
locations.
Suggest add to the drafting note as follows:
Comment noted.
Planning authorities that are aware of high risk areas in
their jurisdiction, and which to use this code to provide
intervention at the statutory planning stage will be
responsible for generating the overlay maps. Utilisation
of the maps within the ‘Dispersive Soils and their
Management Technical reference manual (DPIPWE
2009)’ as a starting point, and liaison with DPIPWE, is
recommended.
E.21.3
Definition of terms
HCC
Definition of dispersive soils:
This is a laboratory analytical technique. Has the cost of this
technique been determined? If the cost is high it may be more
appropriate to allow for field testing using the simplified
Emerson Crumb Test.
Explanation:
This definition is provided purely for explanatory
purposes and is not ‘operational’ within the code.
The code applies by an overlay, not by testing.
E.21.3
Definition of terms
DPIPWE
Definition of dispersive soils:
Not all sodic soils disperse, and not all dispersive soils are
sodic. Generally soils over an ESP of 6 will disperse in fresh
water. However high aluminium, organic carbon, or salt content
can prevent dispersion in an otherwise dispersive soil. Also
high silt, high magnesium and some low CEC soils will also be
dispersive below the ESP threshold. Furthermore some nondispersive soils will disperse after disturbance while some
dispersive soils stop dispersing after compaction.
Recommended that the definition be amended to:
“Soil or sediment with a Exchangeable Sodium Percentage
greater than 6% or which demonstrates dispersive behaviour
when in contact with fresh water”
Note: dispersive behaviour would need to be defined in terms
of both field observation and physical tests such as the
Emerson test or pinhole test.
Agree
Amend wording as suggested.
(It is assumed that the DPIPWE “Dispersive soils and
their Management – Technical Reference” document
defines ‘dispersive behaviour’, and this definition would
therefore not need to be in the scheme).
Definition of dispersive soils assessment report:
Agree.
E.21.3
DPIPWE
237
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Definition of terms
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Should have a mandatory requirement for emersion testing
and reporting of ESP (with OC, EC). Other test may be
required ie pinhole test for compacted samples.
Explanation:
It is assumed that the DPIPWE “Dispersive soils and
their Management – Technical Reference” document
sets out these tests. (Check …?)
The DPIPWE document is referenced in the footnotes.
E.21.3
Definition of terms
DPIPWE
Definition of dispersive soils assessment report (c)
‘Potential to cause gully or tunnel erosion’
This is very hard to determine. Development of tunnel erosion
is hard to predict and quite episodic. We simply don’t have the
science to reliably relate level of sodicity, and type of
disturbance to likihood of tunnel development. Consider that
some tunnel systems lie inactive for 10 or more years before a
storm event causes the tunnel affected are to expand 30 % or
more in a day ???
Noted.
Revised definition, suggested by DPIPWE above, to be
used.
E.21.3
Definition of terms
DPIPWE
Definition of dispersive soils assessment report (e)
Suggest amend as follows:
where necessary, proposed management measures to
(e)
reduce risk to an acceptable level,
Agree.
E.21.3
Definition of terms
(Proposed new)
DPIPWE
Proposed definition of ‘significant risk’
“A level of risk such that, if an event were to occur, it is
probable that there would be injury or loss of life or that such
damage would result that the costs of repair or remediation are
disproportionate to the original construction costs.”
Agree.
But - put this forward to TPC Committee / DPAC as an
standard state-wide definition for section 4.1 of the
scheme. It would apply to all risk codes.
E.21.4.1 (a)
Exemptions
HCC
Why should only resource development uses be exempt?
There should be a general exemption for any development that
does not expose sub-surface soils and does not alter the soil
hydrology.
Agree.
E.21.4.1 (a)
Exemptions
HCC
Sub-surface soils’ need to be defined. Suggest using ‘soils
below the A horizon’.
Not agree.
‘Sub-surface’ acceptable to DPIPWE.
E.21.4.1 (a)
DPIPWE
Suggest rewrite as follows:
Agree.
238
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Exemptions
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
“(a)
works associated with a resource development use not
involving the exposing, or disturbance, of sub-surface soils”
E.21.4.1 (b)
Exemptions
DPIPWE
Suggest rewrite as follows:
“(b)
additions or alterations to an existing building provided
work outside the area of existing development disturbance
area does not: increase soil disturbance, increase surface
water ponding, alters stormwater/blackwater/greywater
drainage and sub-surface disposal, or involve the installation
of new underground services”
Not agree.
An exemption needs to be more straightforward that
proposed.
E.21.4.1 (c)
Exemptions
HCC
There appears to be no logic in using floor area as an
exemption trigger, and this is inconsistent with (b) which uses
footprint. Also, consideration should be given to having
cumulative limits on exemptions (e.g. five 100m2 buildings
probably shouldn’t be exempt).
Agree.
Change (b) and (c) to refer to area of ground
disturbance.
E.21.4.1 (c)
Exemptions
DPIPWE
Suggest rewrite as follows:
“(c)
the construction of a non-habitable building that, does
not involve soil cut and fill, or the installation of underground
services;”
Agree – in part.
Change to refer to area of ground disturbance, as per
above comment.
E.21.4 (general)
Exemptions
HCC
These exemptions are not clear with regard to the allowable
degree of ground disturbance associated with
alterations/additions/new buildings. Presumably these
exemptions allow for some ground disturbance, but are there
limits on the amount of ground disturbance for associated
works such as excavation, batters, landscaping, installation of
services etc. Exemptions based on the amount of ground
disturbance would be far more logical. Alterations to soil
hydrology are also not considered here.
Agree.
Change exemptions to refer to ‘development area’,
which is a newly agreed state-wide defined term from
the TPC Committee,
E.21.5.1
Application requirements.
DPIPWE
Given how variable dispersive soils can be, It is recommended
that the code be amended to require assessments for building
development include dispersion testing within the mandatory
soil test requirements (currently omitted in Tasmania). There is
Query:
It is assumed that the DPIPWE “Dispersive soils and
their Management – Technical Reference” document
239
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
a discussion of relevant procedures and risk associated with
different identification / analytical approaches in the technical
reference manual.
Regional Project Response
sets out these tests? (Check …?)
(Note this comment was tagged to E.21.2.1)
E.21.7.1
Objective
DPIPWE
Suggest change ‘located’ to ‘identified’.
Not agree.
Objective is intended to provide planning authority with
clear head power to require a proposed development
to relocate to a better site on the title.
E.21.7.1
Need for Acceptable Solution
HCC
No AS:
There should be an acceptable solution where a dispersive soil
test report indicates that the soils are not dispersive. There
doesn’t appear to be a good reason to make the proposal
discretionary in situations where the soil is not dispersive.
Not agreed.
The principle behind acceptable solutions is that they
are clear, simple and inarguable.
They cannot, therefore, reply on an expert report.
They can only reply on regulatory certificates and other
statutory approvals.
There is therefore significant reliance on the dispersive
soil overlay being reasonably precise.
E.21.7.1
Need for Acceptable Solution
HVC
There should be the ability for an acceptable solution to
consider previous studies of the site or nearby land. For
instance, a house application may attract a dispersive soils
assessment report & and a shed or house addition at a later
point would attract a further report.
Not agree.
Acceptable solutions can not be based on reports from
suitably qualified persons.
However, it is entirely optional for a planning authority
to request such a report – and only if ‘necessary’ to
determine e compliance. It may be that existing reports
are judged to be enough to determine compliance.
E.21.7.1 P1 (a)
DPIPWE
Suggest rewrite to:
“(a)
the dispersive potential of soils in the vicinity of
buildings, driveways, services and areas of top soil removal,
vegetation removal or sub-soil disturbance”
Agree.
Amend, but refer to ‘development area’, the newly
defined state-wide term from the TPC Committee.
E.21.7.1 P1 (b)
DPIPWE
Suggest rewrite to:
“(b)
the dispersive potential of soils in the vicinity of
stormwater/ greywater/blackwater (water drainage lines,
infiltration areas/trenches, storage, ponds/dams and disposal
Agree – in part.
Add a new sub clause as suggested.
But keep existing sub clause (b).
240
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
areas);”
E.22.0 Hydro Lakes Code
E.23.0 On-Site Wastewater Code
Need for code
TPC
Zoning already provides subdivision standards that require:
..each lot must be capable of accommodating an on-site
wastewater treatment system adequate for the future use and
development of the land.
Whether policy issue, or matter more appropriate for zone,
rather Code.
Delete Code?
Explanation:
Code targets development on existing lots in areas of
‘suburban density’ but with not serviced by sewer
system.
Its purpose is to provide clear guidance early in the
design-consideration stage regarding the size of the
dwelling, the number of bedrooms, etc verses the
amount of open space dedicated to on-site wastewater
treatment.
It is an optional code and expected to be used only for
those municipal areas where there are significant
numbers of un-serviced suburban-sized lots.
Need for code.
HCC
The overall approach set out under this code is not supported.
Compliance with this code would not guarantee that the site is
suitable for an OWMS, and would not guarantee that a Special
Plumbing Permit would be granted. Only a Site and Soil
Evaluation by a suitably qualified person, acceptable to the
Environmental Health Officer, can definitively determine that
any particular site is suitable and the type of design required,
and ultimately the plumbing authority has discretion to vary the
standards recommended in AS1547
Explanation:
This is an optional code and expected to be used only
for those municipal areas where there are significant
numbers of un-serviced suburban-sized lots.
See comments above re: TPC comments.
Need for code.
GCC
Because of the relatively low number of applications in
Glenorchy when compared with many other councils, this Code
Explanation:
This is an optional code and expected to be used only
241
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
will only have minimal impact.
for those municipal areas where there are significant
numbers of un-serviced suburban-sized lots.
See comments above re: TPC comments.
Need for (part of) code
HVC
The acceptable solutions that provide vertical separation
between land application area and bedrock/hardpan &
groundwater are difficult to satisfy without expert assessment
and ground investigations. This precludes the Code from
provided a permitted assessment pathway which does not
impose upfront development costs. These considerations
should be deleted and regulated through the building approval
process.
Not agree.
In some cases the depth to bedrock will be readily
known, or knowable without expert assessment.
Use of term ‘setback’ contrary
to Template definition
TPC
The use of the term “setback” throughout Development
Standards of this Code is contrary to the Template definition in
clause 4.1.3 and within E.23.3.1 Definitions - “setback to
ground water” and ”setback from downslope surface
water”
Setback is used to refer to distance from Land Application Area
and various points.
Redraft using a different word.
Agree
Various clauses: crossreferencing other clauses.
TPC
Many of the AS and PC in the Code cross reference elements
of other standards in the code.
e.g. E.23.9.1 P1 must satisfy all standards for E.23.7.
Cross referencing unnecessary and unclear what the criteria
for assessment is (AS or PC, or both).
Suggest redraft.
Agree in part.
Will review and attempt re-draft.
E.23.1.1
Purpose
TPC
Purpose statement, as drafted, is:
The purpose of this provision is to provide standards early in
the development design process for determining the minimum
land area necessary for the satisfactory onsite treatment of
wastewater
Explanatory rather than a statement against which to make
decision and context on which to base the Code standards.
Agree
Redraft.
See comment below.
242
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Redraft.
E.23.1.1
Purpose
GCC
Suggest redrafted purpose statement as follows:
“The purpose of this provision is to ensure that all development
and use requiring onsite waste water management will have
access to sufficient land area necessary for the satisfactory
onsite treatment of that wastewater”
Agree
Adopt suggested words, or similar.
E.23.2.1
Application
GCC
Question: Should this clause identify why onsite management
is required? E.g. the use or development does not have
access to sewer/is not within xm of a sewer or whatever the
rule under relevant legislation is?
Answer:
No. Inclusion of the ‘why’ would unnecessarily
complicate the code.
The code applies once that decision has been reached
through external thought processes.
It is not intended that the code regulate when onsite
wastewater management is required.
E.23.2.1 (b)
Application
GCC
Is the paragraph following (b) just a rewording of the first part
of sentence (b)? If so, suggest the deletion of this entire
sentence and adding the last bit of this sentence to (b) as
follows:
(b)
wastewater similar to domestic wastewater from nonresidential use, other than wastewater from industrial or
manufacturing processes
Agree
Adopt suggested words, or similar.
Numerous technical aspects
HCC
Numerous technical aspects
Referred to regional EHO subgroup developing this
code via Sorell Council.
Numerous aspects
GCC
Numerous amendments to text suggested.
Agree to consider.
Consider in redrafting.
E.23.3
Definition of Terms
HCC
AS/NZS1547
“means the Australian/New Zealand Standard On-site
Domestic Wastewater Management 2012.”
Better not to specify version (i.e. “2012”) so that latest version
is automatically applicable.
Agree.
E.23.3
GCC
high rainfall area
Agree.
243
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Definition of Terms
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
What do we state if there are none in our PS area? Suggest
two different regional options to accommodate Councils with
no high rainfall areas.
E.23.3
Definition of Terms
GCC
Land Application Area (LAA)
PAN13 states that abbreviations should only be used for words
that occur frequently in the text (which this term does) and that
are widely understood (which this term is not), accordingly it
should not be abbreviated and all abbreviations throughout the
text should be removed
Agree.
Refer only to “Land Application Area”
E.23.3
Definition of Terms
HCC
Use of term ‘potable water’ in definition of ‘high resource
value surface water’:
Does this mean ‘potable’ water as defined in the ANZECC
guidelines (i.e. complies with the ADWGs for health and
aesthetics) or water being used for drinking water?
Explanation:
“Potable” means “suitable for drinking”.
E.23.4.1
Exempt site size limit.
GCC
The exempt site size limit of 5000m2 is shown as optional.
This size area was agreed upon by Southern Regional EHO's
as the best fit considering potential issues etc. Recommended
to keep that size unless it raises conflict with planning.
Agree.
However need to retain as optional to allow a planning
authority to increase if local circumstances warrant it.
E.23.4.1
Exempt site size limit.
GCC
The exempt site size limit of 5000m2 is shown as optional.
Question: What happens if the site is subject to other site
restrictions such as landslip, (archaeological) heritage etc,
does that make a difference on this matter?
Answer:
Assume that 5000m2 will cover over 99% of situations.
Therefore: a good regulation.
Note that the figure 5000m2 is optional, thereby
allowing a council to increase if local circumstances
warrant it.
E.23.5.1 (b)
Application requirements
GCC
Text is:
“(b)
certification from a structural engineer that the risk of
effluent reducing the bearing capacity of a building’s
foundations is acceptably low”
Question: Should the engineer also consider other factors,
such as landslip, sodic soils etc?
Answer:
Yes, but there is no need to mention all factors that
might possibly be in play.
244
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
E.23.6.1
Use Standards
GCC
There are no use standards in the code.
Question: Does that mean that any use issues, such as a ST
failure are adequately dealt with under EMPCA?
Answer:
Yes.
Enforcement of planning controls is cumbersome,
lengthy and costly due to the refusal of the State
Government to grant Local Government direct
enforcement powers. Where an alternative direct
enforcement power exists, Councils will always use it.
E.23.7.1
Title
GCC
Why use the term ‘new dwelling’ when the standards refer to
‘new residential development?
?????
E.23.7.1 A1
GCC
Suggest rewrite to:
“All new residential development must have a land application
area in compliance with Table E.23.1.”
Agree
Rewrite
E.23.7.2 P1 (a)
HVC
E.23.7.2 P1 (a) must clarify what the setback is to.
(Unclear what is mean by comment)
E.23.7.1 & E.23.7.2
HVC
E.23.7.1 & E.23.7.2 could be combined easily into one
standard. For instance E.23.7.2 P2 defers to E.23.7.1.
E.23.7.2. A3 refers to a new buildings despite being located
under “Development Standards for Additions and Alterations”
Acknowledge.
Consider when redrafting.
245
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Comments from the Tasmanian Planning Commission, Councils and Govt. Agencies – 26 Feb 2013
The Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project
is a joint initiative of the State of Tasmania, the Southern Tasmanian Councils Authority,
the 12 Southern Councils and the Sullivans Cove Waterfront Authority
246
Appendix C
Southern Regional Model Scheme - Analysis and response to submissions in
relation to regional content received from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning
Scheme Consultation
29 October 2013
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
A total of 89 submissions were received in relation to the regional provisions in the draft planning schemes made available for
public comment in June /July 2013. 64 of these were from members of the public and 25 from government agencies, industry
groups, community groups and councils. This report summarises those submissions and provides a response.
Submissions received in relation to local content in the draft planning schemes will be addressed by the relevant council.
Submissions in relation to optional regional content, where the relevant council could have omitted that content or modified a
standard (such as minimum lot size), will also need to be addressed by the relevant council.
Submission references used in this report are as follows:
Government Agencies
DIER
Department of Infrastructure Energy and Resources
PWS
Parks and Wildlife Service
HT
Heritage Tasmania
DPIPWE
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment
TPC
Tasmanian Planning Commission – Model Planning Scheme Committee
DEP
FA1
Derwent Estuary Program
Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Federal Agency)
Industry Groups
IG1
Property Council of Australia (Tasmania)
IG2
Forest Industries Association of Tasmania
IG3
Bulky Goods Retailers Association
IG4
Cement Concrete Aggregates Australia
IG5
Mobile Carriers Forum
2
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
Community Groups
CG1
Tasmanian Land Conservancy
CG2
Tasmanian Conservation Trust
CG3
Cycling South
CG4
Hobart Ecovillage Group
Councils
BC
Brighton Council
CHC
Central Highlands Council
CCC
Clarence City Council
GCC
Glenorchy City Council
HCC
Hobart City Council
HVC
Huon Valley Council
KC
Kingborough Council
SC
Sorell Council
SMC
Southern Midlands Council
Public
P*
Public submission
*Each member of the public making a submission has been given a reference number; the public was advised during the consultation process that the author of
each submission would be kept confidential.
3
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
CONTENTS
General Comments – Support for Planning Reform
11
General Comments – Complexity of document / process / consistency
11
General Comments – Other legislation
13
General Comments – Missing Potential State Codes
13
General Comments – Subdivision: Always to be Discretionary
16
General Comments – Subdivision: Link to LGBMP Act 1993
17
General Comments – Subdivision: Enforcement of Covenants
18
General Comments – Subdivision: Services
20
General Comments – Telecommunications
21
General Comments – Subdivision: Lot design
22
General Comments – Subdivision: roads
23
General Comments – The Business and Commercial Zones
23
General Comments – Absolute Height Limits
24
General Comments – Absolute Setback Reduction Limits
24
General Comments – The Term ‘Native Vegetation’
25
4
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
General Comments – Zoning
26
General Comments – Terminology in Standards:
26
General Comments – ‘Ancillary dwelling’
27
General Comments – Discretionary Use
28
General Comments – Discretionary Uses – Hours of Operation
28
General Comments – Discretionary Uses – Commercial Vehicle Movements
33
General Comments – Business Zones - Use Standards near a Residential Zone
34
General Comments – Visitor Accommodation
35
General Comments – Local Shop (multiple zones)
38
General Comments – External Colours
39
General Comments – Mixed Use / Business Zones – Design Standards
40
General Comments – codes
40
General Comments – Hazards Codes: Where there is no mapping of the hazard.
41
General Comments – Code Overlays – Poor Quality of GIS Overlay Information Supplied to the Region
41
General Comments – Use Tables
43
General Comments – Driveway Gradient
44
General Comments – ‘Community Living’
44
5
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
General Comments – Checking of the Consistency of the Provisions with Regional Policies
46
General Comments – Checking Internal Consistency of Zone and Code Purpose Statements with Use Tables and Standards
46
General Comments – Ensuring Consistency Between Equivalent Standards is Maintained Through the Revision Process
46
General Comments – Over-specification in Regional Zone Purpose Statements
47
General Comments – Interaction of Codes with the Content Management System
48
General Comments – Legal Perusal
48
General comments – sport and recreation uses
48
General Comments – Rural Zones / Agriculture
49
General Comments – Marine Infrastructure
50
General Comments - Forestry
50
General Comments – Good Drafting
52
General Comments – Typos
54
General Comments – Tables
54
2.0 Planning Scheme Purpose
56
3.0 Planning Scheme Objectives
56
4.0 Interpretation
58
5.0 General Exemptions
61
6
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
6.0 Limited Exemptions
69
7.0 Planning Scheme Operation
84
8.0 Assessment of an Application for Use or Development
84
9.0 Special Provisions
89
10.0 General Residential Zone
92
11.0 Inner Residential Zone
116
12.0 Low Density Residential Zone
133
13.0 Rural Living Zone
141
14.0 Environmental Living Zone
149
15.0 Urban Mixed Use Zone
153
16.0 Village Zone
155
17.0 Community Purpose Zone
156
18.0 Recreation Zone
156
19.0 Open Space Zone
156
20.0 Local Business Zone
157
21.0 General Business Zone
157
22.0 Central Business Zone
160
7
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
23.0 Commercial Zone
161
24.0 Light Industrial Zone
162
25.0 General Industrial Zone
166
26.0 Rural Resource Zone
166
27.0 Significant Agriculture Zone
172
28.0 Utilities Zone
176
29.0 Environmental Management Zone
178
30.0 Major Tourism Zone
184
31.0 Port & Marine Zone
184
32.0 Particular Purpose Zone 1 – Urban Growth Zone
184
33.0 Particular Purpose Zone 2 – Future Corridor Zone
184
E.1.0 Bushfire-Prone Areas Code (A State-mandated code)
185
E.2.0 Potentially Contaminated Land Code
197
E.3.0 Landslide Code
198
E.4.0 Flood Prone Land Code
198
E.5.0 State Road & Rail Asset Code
199
E.6.0 Parking and Access Code
199
8
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
E.7.0 Infrastructure Code
208
E.8.0 Construction Management Code
219
E.9.0 Attenuation Code
226
E.10.0 Biodiversity Code
231
E.11.0 Waterways and Coastal Protection Code
271
E.12.0 Geodiversity Code
283
E.13.0 (Local) Heritage Code
288
E.14.0 Scenic Landscapes
303
E.15.0 Inundation Prone Areas Code
305
E.16.0 Coastal Erosion Hazard Code
316
E.17.0 Signs Code
319
E.18.0 Wind and Solar Energy Code
326
E.19.0 Telecommunications Code
334
E.20.0 Acid Sulfate Soils
338
E.21.0 Dispersive Soils
338
E.22.0 Hydro Lakes Code
338
E.23.0 On-Site Wastewater Code
339
9
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
10
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
GENERAL COMMENTS – SUPPORT FOR PLANNING REFORM
Support for standardisation
across the State.
Hydro
Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on the
Draft Planning Schemes for the Southern Tasmania Region.
Hydro Tasmania would like to reiterate its support for planning
reform across Tasmania, and more particularly the Regional
Planning Projects and development of new and consistent
planning schemes.
Regional Project Response
Support noted.
Firstly Hydro Tasmania would like to take this time to indicate
its continued support for the development of consistent
planning schemes across Tasmania through the
implementation of Planning Directive 1 - The Format and
Structure of Planning Schemes. In addition, we believe that the
development of integrated regional land use frameworks
through a consultative process will lead to the greatest
opportunity for sustainable land use development and growth
across the State.
Support
DIER
Overall, DIER is generally supportive of the intent and direction
of the Interim Schemes.
GENERAL COMMENTS – COMPLEXITY OF DOCUMENT / PROCESS / CONSISTENCY
Support noted.
Size and complexity
P17
I cannot see how this Interim Scheme will provide simplified
and greater certainly for residents or developers. It is massive
and daunting to a lay person.
Noted.
Discretion
P90
We wish to express our concern regarding the new planning
scheme. We have attended two information sessions regarding
the scheme and understand the concept to make life simpler.
Noted, the performance criteria do provide for
considerable discretion however this is difficult to avoid
in a performance based planning scheme. For some
11
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
However there seems to be a huge area that is open to
possible loose interpretation. In fact the word "discretionary"
was used in some many possible scenarios voiced at meetings
that we would suggest that it should be called the Discretionary
Planning Scheme.
issues such as heritage it is not possible to draft
quantifiable acceptable solutions making most
development discretionary.
Process
P51
My experience has been that wherever attempted
consultation/comment with most local councils is that, unless it
is mandatory to take notice of representation, it is ignored
wherever it is “legal” so to do. This has been my experience
over a 30 year period. A number of areas will require a lot of
polishing, if not rewriting and it does appear that this is a rush
job in launching a broader planning framework,
(notwithstanding the desirability of such a statewide objective).
Planning and haste are not natural partners!
Noted.
Consistency
IG1
1. There is a minimum level of consistency between each of
the schemes when it comes to level of detail. This is evident in
the fact there has been no regional codification;
The vast majority of the scheme content across the
southern region is consistent. The main differences
relate to the use tables and the detailed standards
such as subdivision lot sizes and setbacks in zones.
These differences are often required to reflect the
historic development pattern in different localities. In
other cases such as in the Hobart Central Business
Zone it is not appropriate to apply the same standards
such as height to other Central Business Zones in the
region.
2. There has been no “road testing” of any of the schemes’
provisions and the inter-relationship between them and the
codes that have been developed as regional model provisions.
Nor has there been any commitment to a legal review prior to
them becoming operational;
3. There remains a high level of discretion available to councils
which intensifies the lack of certainty, clarity and consistency
for any application for development; and
4. The development of regional model provisions allows for
“opt in” or “opt out” options which raises the question of why
one council should be entitled to “opt in” or “opt out” of the
12
The regional provisions have been subject to legal
review and the interim scheme process will enable
testing and fine tuning of the provisions.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
codes which should be applied consistently across the region
and the State.
Zone application
IG2
The development of consistent application criteria to the
development zoning categories is critical to ensuring the
fairness and consistency strived for in the southern planning
schemes. This is evident when comparing one planning
scheme directly adjacent and in similar circumstances to
another e.g. comparing Huon Valley and Kingborough. In many
cases along the boundary of these two planning schemes the
change in zoning is only attributable to a change in local
government area, resulting in differing development uses from
one direct neighbour to another - an approach which could
hardly be considered consistent or fair.
GENERAL COMMENTS – OTHER LEGISLATION
References to other
Legislation
P35
I cannot see where there is a requirement to take into account
the various access legislation e.g. Disability Act.
GENERAL COMMENTS – MISSING POTENTIAL STATE CODES
Missing Potential State Codes:
General.
TPC
These issues were raised in the Advisory Committee’s
November 2012 report and further discussed with the STRPP.
While in the State’s other regions have included Regional
codes, despite the draft status of a number of State-wide
codes, it has been the Southern Region’s preference to defer
this work pending the issue of State-wide codes.
13
Issue noted, Planning Authorities will need to take
more note of the zone application guidelines prepared
as part of the STRLUS for this issue to be resolved.
It is not necessary for a planning scheme to reference
all other related legislation. Relevant legislation must
be complied with irrespective of the planning scheme
provisions.
Noted.
The draft interim planning schemes submitted to the
Minister will only omit those codes for which the region
has received advice from the TPC that the state-wide
versions will be finalised before the likely declaration of
the interim schemes.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
For the Minister to declare interim planning schemes it will be
necessary for each document to be complete, including all the
necessary code provisions. While the Regional Model may
omit some codes, with the consequence that draft interim
planning schemes would not include all the necessary codes,
these documents will not be suitable for the declaration by the
Minister until they are complete.
Regional Project Response
These are the Road and Rail Asset Code and
Contaminated Land Code.
However, it is acknowledged that the process of considering 12
draft interim planning schemes for the purpose of advising the
Minister about their compliance with the requirements of the
Act may be lengthy. It is likely that during this period some
State-wide Codes may be finalised and the inclusion of their
provisions would become mandatory. The Regional Model and
each planning scheme would need to be amended accordingly.
Missing Potential State Codes:
General.
GCC
There remain a number of gaps in the suite of Codes and other
Provisions as a result of Codes promised by the State not yet
being delivered.
It is rumoured that some of these may be imminent.
Complete planning schemes cannot be delivered without these
additional provisions and it would be an absurdity to require the
region to draft new provisions at the eleventh hour to fill a gap
which is soon to be filled by the State.
Examples include landslide, potentially contaminated land,
road and rail asset and the residential standards in the General
Residential Zone.
The associated data sets also need to be delivered in a form
that is compliant with TPC requirements and ready to use.
Noted.
The draft interim planning schemes submitted to the
Minister will only omit those codes for which the region
has received advice from the TPC that the state-wide
versions will be finalised before the likely declaration of
the interim schemes.
These are the Road and Rail Asset Code and
Contaminated Land Code.
Missing Potential State Codes:
TPC
The Commission intends to finalise the Road and Rail Asset
Agree.
14
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
• Landslide Code.
• Potentially Contaminated
Land Code.
• Flood Prone Land Code.
• Road and Railway Assets
Code.
Missing Potential State
Provisions:
Regional Project Response
Code and Contaminated Land Code but the Flood Prone Areas
Code and Landslip Code will not be progressed. Because the
Regional Code addressing inundation due to sea level rise
addresses many issues in the Flood Prone Areas Code, the
only matter that will remain outstanding is landslip.
The STRPP will draft a regional version of the Landslip
Code.
To expedite the submission of draft interim planning schemes,
the Advisory Committee agrees that the further work is not
required to include a Contaminated Land Code, Road and Rail
Asset Code and Flood Prone Areas Code. However, the
STRPP is to include provisions for a Landslip Code in the
Regional Model since there is unlikely to be a statewide
response to this issue prior to the declaration of interim
planning schemes.
TPC
• Provisions for single and
multiple dwellings.
Missing Regional Codes:
Comment or Suggestion
TPC
The regional Inundation Prone Areas Code will
continue to cover riverine flooding.
The codes for Potentially Contaminated Land and for
Road and Rail Assets will not be drafted by the
STRPP, on the basis that these will be finished at
State level before declaration of the schemes.
The Advisory Committee is advised that that the revised
Planning Directive 4 (PD4) is still being considered by the
Commission but is expected to be finalised by the end of the
year, (2013).
The STRPP will include the very latest draft of the
revised PD4 within the General Residential Zone, and
then modify it to suit the Inner Residential Zone and
the Village Zone.
Reference is made to including provisions from the revised
Planning Directive 4 in the Inner Residential and Village Zones.
While new standards will apply in the General Residential Zone
when Planning Directive 4 is issued, if draft interim planning
schemes have been lodged prior to this, there is no
mechanism to introduce the new standards to other zones.
The region may prefer to include residential standards for the
Inner Residential and Village Zones prior to submitting draft
interim planning schemes for declaration, potentially be based
on the current and/or draft standards.
A suitably modified version will also be considered for
inclusion in the Low Density Residential Zone.
Other codes, such as the Hydro Lakes Code, that have not
The STRPP will work with CHC and HVC – and Hydro
15
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
• Hydro Lakes Code
Comment or Suggestion
been populated and are not pertinent to the majority of councils
can be omitted from the Regional Model. However, those
councils requiring the code will need to include their own
provisions.
Regional Project Response
Tasmania - to develop a hydro lakes code / highland
lakes code.
GENERAL COMMENTS – SUBDIVISION: ALWAYS TO BE DISCRETIONARY
Subdivision:
Always a discretionary
application.
TPC
Advice from the Solicitor General provided to the Commission
in 1998 and further confirmed in 2012, outlines that subdivision
cannot be afforded a permitted pathway through a planning
scheme. This issue relates to s.85 of the Local Government
(Building and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1993 and the
discretion provided to Council to refuse a Subdivision plan.
This was raised in the November 2012 report on the previous
version of the draft Regional Model. There are now limited
circumstances in the draft Regional Model where a permitted
pathway is provided through the Acceptable Solutions. Most of
these circumstances are the creation of lots for utilities, public
open space, and riparian and littoral reserves or for the
creation of a road. There are further examples within the
General Residential and Village zones.
The Advisory Committee remains concerned that this approach
is still inconsistent with the Solicitor General’s advice and
recommends that if the proposed provisions remain, the
approach taken in the State’s other regions to include a clause
clarifying that subdivision is discretionary may assist.
Recommendation: Include a Special Provision as has been
included in Section 9 of the Launceston Interim Planning
Scheme 2012 and the Cradle Coast Regional Model Planning
16
Agree.
Include a Special Provision in Part C, Section 9.
The nature of this clause is to simply clarify that all
applications for subdivision are discretionary.
In the interests of statewide consistency, the clause
ought to be the same or similar to those included in the
North West and Northern Regional Model Planning
Schemes.
Proposed wording:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this planning
scheme, with the exception of subclause 9.2.1, all
applications for subdivision may be refused or
approved at the discretion of the planning authority,
unless the division must not be approved under section
84 of the Local Government (Building and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1993
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Scheme confirming that whilst the scheme includes Acceptable
Solutions, subdivision is discretionary development.
GENERAL COMMENTS – SUBDIVISION: LINK TO LGBMP ACT 1993
Planning schemes need to
coordinate with subdivision
requirements under Part 3 of
Local Government Building &
Miscellaneous Provisions Act
1993.
HCC
The planning scheme must contain a requirement in relation to
subdivisions and boundary adjustments that they comply with
the provisions of Part 3 of Local Government Building &
Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1993 (LGBMP). Section 81(1)(b)
of LGBMP provides a link to LUPAA and the planning scheme.
A similar reciprocal provision is required in the planning
scheme providing a link back to LGBMP.
The reason for this is that Council can only seal Final Plans
under section 89 LGBMP if they comply with all of Part 3
LGBMP. The planning scheme must not permit the issue of
subdivision permits that contravene Part 3 LGBMP because
they could never be implemented.
LGBMP contains important matters to be considered before
approving subdivisions and boundary adjustments relating to
services and access, minimum lots, the dedication of land for
public purposes, the provision of road widening, deviation of
roads & ways, provision of Public Open Space, drainage,
security for the execution of works, provision of easements and
preparation of title documents.
Planning schemes are silent on much of this.
Essentially the provisions in LGBMP contain the backbone of
sustainable subdivision governance and reflect the provisions
in the previous Local Government Act 1962 and the earlier
17
Agree.
A clause requiring all subdivisions and boundary
adjustments to comply with Part 3 LGBMP is to be
included within the regional model scheme.
A general provision is to be added to Part C, Section 9,
which would thus ride over all zone and code
provisions addressing subdivision.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Hobart Corporation Act 1947. In particular sections 84, 85, 86,
95, 97, 99, 106, 107,109, 109, 111, 112, 116 & 117.
Part 3 LGBMP must not be overlooked by the planning
scheme, the Council, RMPAT or the courts in any planning
approval or appeal process, to do so would be unworkable and
contrary to the Council’s strategic objective FD4 – to achieve
good quality development and urban management.
It is noted that the Tasmanian Planning Commission will
address some of these issues by inserting the following clause
into all new schemes as part of the planning scheme template:
“9.4 Subdivision 9.4.1 Notwithstanding any other provision of
this planning scheme, with the exception of subclause 9.2.1, all
applications for subdivision may be refused or approved at the
discretion of the planning authority, unless the division must
not be approved under section 84 of the Local Government
(Building and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1993”.
This doesn’t go far enough. A clause requiring all subdivisions
and boundary adjustments to comply with Part 3 LGBMP is
required within the scheme.
The scheme should contain discretion for councils to refuse
development applications that would unreasonably obstruct
easements including public, private, registered and perhaps
even prescriptive easements.
GENERAL COMMENTS – SUBDIVISION: ENFORCEMENT OF COVENANTS
HCC
The question has been raised as to whether a scheme should
contain a discretion for the council to refuse development
18
Planning authorities wishing to create a covenant on a
title (i.e. a public/private covenant) should use a
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
applications that contravene provisions in existing covenants,
particularly public/council covenants required by a planning
authority by prior permit condition (i.e.) Restrictions on building
heights, number of dwellings, riparian covenants etc.
“covenant-in-gross”. This mechanism exists especially
to enable a restrictive covenant to be placed on a title
in favour of a Council.
A planning authority should not take on the responsibility in
respect of privately agreed covenants because their extent,
content and merit are unknown, without researching titles in a
planning scheme area. The planning scheme and its periodic
public statutory processes is the appropriate framework for the
provision of use and development standards.
This principle also applies to those public/council covenants. If
these are considered appropriate to remove or substitute they
should follow due process, outside the processes of the Land
Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993
The question of the right to refuse an application that is in
conflict with a public/council covenant considered necessary to
remain in place does though need addressing, though it should
arguably be a separate mechanism rather than a discretionary
one under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993.
This is a classic area for proper consideration by a prospective
applicant before and application is submitted; it might also
merit inclusion as a qualification to exemption provisions.
This perhaps is a matter requiring contemporaneous
consideration by the State Government in the period prior to
the declaration of Interim Planning Schemes for Southern
Tasmania.
19
Regular restrictive covenants are always
private/private agreements. They must always have a
dominant tenement and a subservient tenement,
meaning they can only ever be used to provide a
restriction on one piece of land in favour of another
piece of land. It should not be a mandatory
requirement of planning schemes to enforce them.
This would constitute use of public funds to protect
private rights.
If in assessing a development application the planning
authority becomes aware that a proposed use or
development may be a contravention of a regular
restrictive covenant, the planning authority would have
a duty of care to advise the application that this may be
the case and that he/she should seek their own legal
advice. It may be that a planning permit issued by the
Council may not be able to be acted upon because of
the private/private covenant, but that would be a
private matter between private citizens.
Other than this duty of care, the matter should not
ordinarily influence the outcome of a planning
authority’s consideration of an application.
The exception is where the restrictive covenant exists
on the title because of some previous decision of the
planning authority. In the past it has been a common
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
mistake of planning authorities to use regular
restrictive covenants instead of covenants-in-gross.
Therefore, planning schemes need to:
•
•
provide the option of considering any regular
restrictive covenants; and
require consideration of any covenants-ingross.
GENERAL COMMENTS – SUBDIVISION: SERVICES
Subdivision:
Connections to services.
TasWater
There isn’t consistency across the Southern Region with
regard to the presence of water and sewerage services, as
well as the level service, in particular levels of service in water
supply zones. Within the same Council area you will also find
variability within the same water supply zone, i.e. a Village
zone in one area may have services, whereas a Village zone in
another area of the same Council area may have no or limited
water and sewerage services.
May be possible to link the requirement to connect in some
zones to TasWater’s Service Land Layer (in development and
a requirement under the operating licence). If the land is
serviced the development must connect to the service.
Recommendation:
Water and sewerage service variability, both in terms of the
presence of services or not and the levels of service, needs to
be considered in the drafting of the schemes and the
20
Explanation:
It is not intended that planning schemes be used to
manage the detail of connections to water and sewer
services. This is it be left to TasWater and its own
regulatory framework.
The intent of the General Residential Zone is for full
services, and future subdivision or development should
be connected to TasWater’s infrastructure. If it cannot
then the subdivision or development should not
proceed.
Note that, generally, it is the case that water and sewer
connections are in fact possible and it is the cost of
connection that is the real issue.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
subdivisional service standards.
Further discussion required.
GENERAL COMMENTS – TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Telecommunications
infrastructure – provision in
new development.
FA1
Department
of
Broadband,
Communic
ations and
the Digital
Economy
Planning arrangements should support installation of
fibre-ready pit and pipe in new developments. The
Department also considers state and local planning
arrangements can assist with the provision of
telecommunications infrastructure by supporting the installation
of appropriate passive infrastructure like pit and pipe in new
developments. For its part, the Commonwealth has legislated
for the installation of fibre-ready facilities (e.g. pit and pipe that
can hold optical fibre line) by constitutional corporations in new
developments through Part 20A of the Telecommunications
Act 1997. This avoids the need for costly retrofitting and civil
works at a future date when fibre or other telecommunications
lines are installed. Such arrangements offer assurance to
property buyers that suitable passive telecommunications
infrastructure is in place, and to end users that they will be able
to access services from service providers. However, the
Commonwealth's legislation is necessarily directed at
constitutional corporations, meaning developers that are not
constitutional corporations are not covered by Commonwealth
requirements, creating the possibility that they may not install
fibre-ready facilities. To address this, the Department
encourages State. Territory and local governments to consider
complementary measures that would cover developers that are
21
Agree this should be added to the subdivision services
standard in the urban zones along with a requirement
for undergrounding of electricity supply.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
not constitutional.
Telecommunications
infrastructure – provision in
new development.
FA1
Department
of
Broadband,
Communic
ations and
the Digital
Economy
Provision of telecommunications pathways in new
buildings The Department would also encourage the Authority
to consider whether guidance could be provided in the
Regional Model Provisions or other planning guidance on the
inclusion of appropriate telecommunications pathways like
conduits in new buildings - particularly multi-dwelling units,
shopping centres and office buildings - to further facilitate the
connection of telecommunications networks to individual
premises and the reticulation of services within premises. The
Department considers such arrangements would assist with
the provision of fibre as it is deployed to premises, ideally in
line with first occupation.
This is not a role for the planning scheme, most
applications would not have the level of detail to show
telecommunications conduits in new buildings.
GENERAL COMMENTS – SUBDIVISION: LOT DESIGN
Subdivision:
Lot design
P74
We also note within the general clauses of most of the zones
that it is not possible to have more than two access strips side
by side serving new lots. We believe this to be very restrictive
and certainly in a lot of scenarios would not achieve the
general philosophy, again, of most of the zones for effective
development of the site as well as increasing infill allotments
especially in fully serviced areas. It is our belief that more than
two access strips should be discretionary and each case
should be taken on its merits. If Council is concerned about the
ongoing maintenance and/or construction of any of these
access strips this can easily be taken care of by suitable
covenants and definitions within the maintenance of the Right
22
Agree, provide some flexibility for more than 2 access
strips side by side.
Specify an absolute limit of 4 and make it clear that
adjoining strips should not be provided where it is more
appropriate to have a public road.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
of Way which forms part of the Schedule of Easements. In fact
Council in the past has in most cases required construction of
these access strips to a high standard before they will allow the
subdivision plans to be sealed, thus avoiding any long term
construction and/or maintenance of these access strips.
GENERAL COMMENTS – SUBDIVISION: ROADS
Subdivision:
Roads
CG3
Cycling
South
Arterial and collector roads in new subdivisions must include
bicycle infrastructure in accord with Austroads Guide to Road
Design Part 6A. Bicycle infrastructure may be in the form of
on-road bicycle lanes, multi-use pathway alongside the road or
a Copenhagen-style’ treatment which separated bicycles from
pedestrian traffic.
Agree, add requirement to the performance criteria in
the subdivision standards for roads in each zone.
Make optional as may not be appropriate in all zones
in all cases.
GENERAL COMMENTS – THE BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL ZONES
Comparisons between the
various business zones and
the commercial zone.
TPC
Consideration was given to the Commercial zone and in
particular to the distinction between the Commercial Zone and
the General Business Zone. In many respects there are
similarities in allowable uses between the two zones. However
most of these provisions are regional optional provisions, so
until the individual Interim Planning Schemes are submitted
and show specific use tables for each municipality, it is difficult
to appreciate how these zones will be distinguished. The use
tables within these zones must be sufficiently varied to enable
a difference between the zones, and an adequate response to
the Activity Centre Hierarchy within the STRLUS.
23
Agree – generally.
Use tables to be reviewed.
However, the following points are noted:
•
Permitted status for ‘supermarket’ in any
particular zone would mean that the scheme is
saying that a supermarket would definitely be
OK on all sites covered by that zone. This may
not be the reality, especially for supermarkets,
which nowadays are generally large-scale
developments. It may therefore be appropriate
to retain discretionary use status.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
In addition, the use tables within all of the business zones must
be revisited. As an example there remains a reference to
‘supermarket’ in the qualification for General Retail and Hire in
the permitted list of uses in both Central Business and General
Business Zones. This does not accord with the Activity Centre
Hierarchy and should be amended.
Regional Project Response
•
The Use Tables are only one part of zones.
Differences between zones may also be found
in the use and development standards.
Recommendation: The Use Table within the Commercial Zone
must adequately respond to the Activity Centre Hierarchy and
provide a point of difference to the General Business and other
Business zones within the Template.
Undertake a review of the Use Tables within all business
zones to ensure the objectives of the Activity Centre Hierarchy
are furthered.
Insert a reference to ‘supermarket’ in the qualification for
General Retail and Hire in permitted list of uses in the Urban
Mixed Use, Local Business zones to ensure consistency with
the Activity Centre Hierarchy.
GENERAL COMMENTS – ABSOLUTE HEIGHT LIMITS
Absolute height limits (under
performance criteria) in
multiple zones.
Multiple
comments
This issue was discussed at the TRG meeting on 21
August 2013 and it was agreed that the absolute limits
be retained as ‘regional optional’. Planning Authorities
can amend or delete if desired.
GENERAL COMMENTS – ABSOLUTE SETBACK REDUCTION LIMITS
Absolute setback limits (under
performance criteria) in
Multiple
comments
This issue was discussed at the TRG meeting on 21
August 2013 and it was agreed that the absolute limits
24
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
multiple zones.
Regional Project Response
be retained as ‘regional optional’. Planning Authorities
can amend or delete if desired. Also agreed that
specific provision is to be made for subminimum sized
lots in a zone where extra discretion is to be available
to relax the setbacks further than the absolute
maximum.
It was also agreed that this concept should be
removed from the Low Density Residential Zone. This
zone is to be treated more like the General Residential
Zone than the Rural Living Zone in this respect.
GENERAL COMMENTS – THE TERM ‘NATIVE VEGETATION’
Use of the general term ‘native
vegetation’.
CHC
Council has major concerns with the wording “native
vegetation”. The word “threatened” to be added in front of the
words “native vegetation” throughout. Council believes that the
Central Highlands area already contains sufficient restrictions
in the form of World Heritage, Conservation Areas, covenanted
land and reserves and therefore does not require any further
restrictions on native vegetation.
Agree – generally - that regional provisions need to be
reviewed in regard to terminology to simplify and
standardise.
The State Template defines ‘threatened vegetation’.
The region has included a definition for ‘native
vegetation’, which was put forward by the TPC
Advisory Committee as one of the new de facto
statewide definitions.
The State Template exemptions use the terms
‘vegetation’ and ‘threatened vegetation’.
Regional provisions, e.g. the Biodiversity Code, refers
to and defines ‘threatened native vegetation
communities’, threatened species, priority vegetation’,
natural values’.
25
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Review needed.
GENERAL COMMENTS – ZONING
Zoning of various Hydro
assets.
Hydro
Tasmania
Comments provided on various proposed zones in various
planning schemes.
The comments have been referred to the relevant
planning authorities.
Zoning of various TasWater
assets.
Taswater
As per the specific comments provided against the zone maps
TasWater (South) would like to see the following assets (on
land owned by TasWater) zoned utility
Zoning of major infrastructure facilities as Utilities is
consistent with the regional zone implementation
guidelines. These guidelines recommend that minor
and underground utilities should be accommodated
across a wide range of other zones and that major
utilities (generally as listed in the Taswater comment)
only be zoned Utilities Zone.
- Sewage Treatment Plants
- Water Treatment Plants
- Dams
- Reservoirs (tanks)
- Major water and sewerage pump stations (these will need to
be identified by TasWater)
Utilities Zone – Railways.
DIER
While TasRail is responsible for planning the rail network,
DIER notes that the existing rail network has not been included
in the Utility zone on Planning Scheme maps. DIER would be
happy to provide updated map layers, and recommends that
these be included in the Scheme’s maps. Please contact
DIER and we will send through the information relevant to your
Council.
This comment to be referred to planning authorities,
with TasWater to be encouraged to provide planning
authorities with spatial information for the sites of major
facilities to ensure all are appropriately zoned.
The DIER offer to provide spatial information to
Councils to ensure the zoning of railways as Utilities
Zone is supported.
GENERAL COMMENTS – TERMINOLOGY IN STANDARDS:
The phrase “… does not
HCC
General note that throughout the scheme there are references
26
Agree.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
impact …” used in various
standards.
Use of term “amenity”
P98
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
to; does not impact;. Care needs to be taken when using
absolutes because there is no such thing as a no impact
development.
Suggest replace with:
The treatment of the term ‘amenity’ is inconsistent in various
clauses in the scheme making them unworkable. Some
clauses leave no doubt as to what is meant while others are
open to interpretation. This needs to be addressed.
Agree.
“ … does not significantly impact …”
Review the way the term is used in various clauses.
The term is defined in the State Template. Its use
needs to be consistent with the definition.
GENERAL COMMENTS – ‘ANCILLARY DWELLING’
Ancillary dwelling does not need to be separately mentioned in
any of the use tables as the template definition of single
dwelling includes ancillary dwelling.
Agree.
GCC
The definition for 'ancillary dwelling' states that it must be
appurtenant to a single dwelling. As such, it cannot be 'nonresidential' development and this standard should be included
under 10.4.
Agree.
Use standard for ancillary
dwelling, 10.5.4 (+ other
zones).
GCC
A1 (b) can't see the point in 'connecting with a path', the term
path is so insubstantial that it becomes irrelevant.
Agree.
Use standard for ancillary
dwelling, 10.5.4 (+ other
zones).
GCC
A1(c) This effectively duplicates (c) in the definition for an
ancillary dwelling, which states: '(c) that shares with that single
dwelling access and parking, and water, sewerage, gas,
electricity and telecommunications connections and meters.'
As such A1 (c) should be deleted, also because in accordance
Agree, this standard (10.5.4 and the other zones in
which it is used) essentially duplicates the definition of
‘ancillary dwelling’ in the Template, as such it serves
little purpose and should be deleted.
In Use Tables, as a
qualification to ‘Residential’,
mention is often given to ‘Only
if single dwelling or ancillary
dwelling’.
HCC
Use standard for ancillary
dwelling, 10.5.4 (+ other
zones).
27
Remove mention of ‘ancillary dwelling’ from the Use
Table qualifications.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
with P1, this requirement may be relaxed, but clearly you can’t
relax a defined term.
Use standard for ancillary
dwelling, 10.5.4 (+ other
zones).
GCC
Providing this standard raises the question of what standards
would/should apply to caretakers dwellings, both in residential
zones and in other zones.
A caretakers dwelling in the residential zones would
need to comply with the residential standards in those
zones. In other zones they would need to comply with
any standards that apply to buildings.
GENERAL COMMENTS – DISCRETIONARY USE
Interaction between
‘discretionary use’ and ‘visitor
accommodation’ use
standards.
GCC
X.3 1
GCC
Discretionary use use
standard.
Discretionary uses and use
standards.
P14
Are visitor accommodation and local shop also assessed
against this use standard? Does this need to be clarified?
(This applies to all residential zones)
Visitor accommodation is to be changed to permitted
use in most zones.
Suggest that this standard be divided into individual standards
for A1, A2, A3 etc. with suitable headings. Also, to ensure that
the provisions apply to all non-residential uses (as opposed to
discretionary uses only) suggest that the lead-ins be changed
to exclude residential use. As such, remove all reference to
'discretionary use'.
Agree.
The Interim Planning Scheme sets up a system whereby
Discretionary uses are required to be tested against a set of
Use Standards. If a Discretionary use meets the acceptable
solutions why is it necessary to advertise it (assuming it
triggers no other discretions)?
Discretionary uses are also assessed against the zone
purpose statements which may provide a basis for
refusal even if all acceptable solutions are met.
Local shop would also be assessed against this
standard.
Standard should apply to all non-residential use, not
just discretionary. There is little benefit in dividing the
standard.
GENERAL COMMENTS – DISCRETIONARY USES – HOURS OF OPERATION
X.3 1
HCC
Re A1: What are hours of operation for discretionary uses such
28
Agree that hours of operation should not apply to uses
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Use standards for
discretionary use.
X.3.1
Use Standards
Hours of Operation
Comment or Suggestion
as visitor accommodation or utilities needs to be clarified. This
comment applies to this standard wherever used.
HCC
Does the acceptable solution need further clarification? Does
the standard only apply to residential zones or zones with
residential components i.e. mixed use zones?
Regional Project Response
that are inherently low impact and 24/7 operation.
Clarify that ‘hours of operation’ do not include:

Utilities.

Emergency Services.

Visitor Accommodation.

Self-Storage.

Residential.
Agree.
“A residential zone” needs to be defined.
Add definition to 4.1.3. List of zones:
•
•
•
•
Inner Residential.
General Residential.
Low Density Residential.
Village.
The Urban Mixed Use Zone is inherently mixed use
and therefore residential use should live with a higher
level of impact from commercial use. Therefore it is not
in the list.
Whilst the Village Zone is a mixed use zone, in reality
such zones are dominated by residential use.
Therefore it is in the list.
The Rural Living and Environmental Living Zones are
large-lot and therefore have larger separation
distances built-in, and they are very unlikely to be
adjacent to a business zone. Therefore it is not in the
29
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
list.
X.3.1
GCC
Use Standards
Hours of Operation
Suggest that the hours be changed to be consistent with the
Environmental Management and Pollution Control
(Miscellaneous Noise) Regulations (note that they are currently
under review) The hours there are: 7.00am to 6pm Monday to
Fridays, 8am to 6pm Saturdays and 10am to 6pm Sundays
and Public Holidays.
Hours of operation should never exceed the Environmental
Management and Pollution Control (Miscellaneous Noise)
Regulations requirements
This issue was discussed at the TRG meeting on 22
August 2013. It was agreed to retain hours of
operation within the planning scheme zones.
However, they should be modified. The meeting
workshopped the hours per zone and agreed on a
revised set of hours. Also agreed the need to ensure
‘hours of operation’ do not include: Utilities,
Emergency Services, Visitor Accommodation and SelfStorage.
At present GCC uses the following DA condition to restrict
noise for activities in residential areas:
"c) An activity carried out in accordance with a permit
associated with the land, must not exceed an equivalent
continuous A-weighted sound pressure level as measured
over 15 minutes (LAeq15min) of:
45dB(A) between the hours of 7am to 6pm;
40dB(A) between the hours of 6pm to 10pm;
35dB(A) between the hours of 10pm to 7am;
when measured in a habitable room of a residential
premise in other ownership. Further recommended design
sound levels are specified in AS2107:2000 – Table 1".
These noise levels may be much better suited to a residential
area. However A2 (b) appears reasonable.
X.3.1
Use Standards
CCC
A regime of restricted trading hours has been introduced into
the scheme where a development is:
30
This issue was discussed at the TRG meeting on 22
August 2013. It was agreed to retain hours of
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
Hours of Operation
From
Comment or Suggestion
(i) within 50 metres of a residential zone (or within 100 metres
for industrial zones); or
(ii) a discretionary activity within a residential zone.
The restricted hours of operation appear as the “Acceptable
Solution” within the Use Standards.
Because of the small footprint of most non-residential zones
within Clarence (e.g. General Business Zones, Local Business
Zones, Community Purposes Zones) the hours of operation
restrictions will in most cases apply to the whole of these
zones.
A spreadsheet summarising the proposed ranges of
acceptable hours across the various zones, and the types of
development impacted, is attached.
The acceptable hours of operation will no doubt become a
default permit condition for development falling within their
ambit, unless the applicant can challenge them by presenting
and succeeding with a case for dispensation.
If the applicant chooses to go down that path, “permitted”
developments will become “discretionary” and thereby will be
subject to additional cost, time, uncertainty due to third party
appeal rights, and risk of refusal.
The objective of the hours of operation restriction is to protect
residential amenity. The logic behind them appears to be that
any non-residential activity has a negative impact on
residential use and therefore the hours of operation need to be
controlled, particularly in the evenings and on Sundays.
This blanket approach is heavy handed and ignores the fact
31
Regional Project Response
operation within the planning scheme zones.
However, they should be modified. The meeting
workshopped the hours per zone and agreed on a
revised set of hours. Also agreed the need to ensure
‘hours of operation’ do not include: Utilities,
Emergency Services, Visitor Accommodation and SelfStorage.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
that:
(a) hours of operation are not in themselves a source of
nuisance and as such are not an appropriate quantitative
measure of amenity.
(b) potential nuisance from noise, external lighting, commercial
vehicle movements, and emissions are controlled by separate
quantitative Use Standards within the Scheme;
(c) separate State legislation is in place to address nuisance in
the event that it occurs (EMPCA and Local Government Act);
(d) in a modern non-sectarian society Sundays do not have the
special significance that they perhaps had several decades
ago;
(e) State legislation removed restrictions on trading hours
approximately 10 years ago, largely in response to community
demand.
It is also noted that Hobart City Council draft interim scheme
takes some steps to lessen the impact of the proposed hours
of operation regional mandatory provisions by adding
additional local Use Standards for “takeaway food premises”
and “hotel industries” expanding their acceptable hours of
operation to 7.00am to 12.00am. This would seem to indicate
that the regional hours of operation standards are not
mandatory but optional.
Such specific measures do not however address the issue that
the broad imposition of hours of operation acceptable solutions
within and adjacent to residential zones is unnecessary and
should be removed as regional provisions.
32
Regional Project Response
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
X.3.1
From
Regional Project Response
GCC
Hours of operation are considered too restrictive. E.G. a winery
or other rural res based small business does most of its
business on the weekend. The nature of rural res means that
operating hours, vehicle movements, particular in terms of
passenger vehicles, have no impact whatsoever on nearby
residential properties, it is considered unreasonable to make all
those matters discretionary at such a low thresh hold.
Comment as above, also review standard in the Rural
and Environmental Living Zone as applied to uses
such as winery.
P25
Restricted hours too little, for example, livestock carriers.
Comment as above, also review operating hours
standard as applied to rural activities.
IG3
We submit that the use standards relating to commercial
vehicle movements in the General Business, Village, and Light
Industrial Zones should reflect the use standards relating to
hours of operation for each of these zones. If it is an
appropriate time of day for a retail business to be open to
customers then accordingly it should be appropriate for
commercial vehicle movements to occur.
Agree commercial vehicle movement hours should
generally be no less than operating hours, but may be
more. Review standard.
Use Standards
Hours of Operation
X.3.1
Comment or Suggestion
Use Standards
Hours of Operation
X.3.1
Use Standards
Hours of Operation
GENERAL COMMENTS – DISCRETIONARY USES – COMMERCIAL VEHICLE MOVEMENTS
X.3 1
Use standards for
discretionary use.
Commercial Vehicle
Movements
GCC
Commercial vehicle movements - this term needs to be
defined, does it relate to vehicles other than cars, or does it
relate to all types of vehicles? If it is intended to relate to cars,
then it is considered too restrictive in a rural res setting, e.g. a
family with 5 children where each family member drives a car
(or where parents ferry children to and from activities) may well
have more 'impact' then a small scale vineyard which attracts
33
The ordinary meaning of the term commercial vehicle
is considered sufficient: it is a vehicle used to carry
people or goods for reward.
It does not include customer vehicles.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
20 customers at lunch time on a Sunday.
GENERAL COMMENTS – BUSINESS ZONES - USE STANDARDS NEAR A RESIDENTIAL ZONE
X.3.2
HCC
Noise
This would prohibit a business 49m from a residential zone that
may want soft background music, which would not exceed the
above limits (A1) from having any form of amplification.
Seems superfluous.
This comment applies wherever this standard is used.
Agree.
A1 sets a noise measurement limit.
However A2 specifically prohibits amplified loud
speakers / music within 50 m of a residential zone.
External music that complies with A1 should be able to
be allowed.
Recommend: Delete A2/P2 in this standard in the
zones.
X.3.2
Noise
X.3.3
External Lighting
X.3.4
HCC
Given the requirements under the acceptable solutions, does
the information need to be included for all uses even though
the use is unlikely to generate such impacts?
Comm. Vehicles
X.3.1 A2 and A3
To what degree of certainty
should an applicant prove
compliance with noise and
lighting Use Standards?
This comment applies to noise, light and commercial
movement.
HCC
Re A2 & A3: The application of standards such as A2 Noise
and A3 Lighting needs to be consistent across the region.
Will it be sufficient for an applicant to state in their application
that their noise emissions for example will not exceed the A2
limits or will a noise consultant’s report be required?
Explanation:
No. If complying with the ASs, the information required
under the PCs is not required.
Explanation:
A pragmatic approach should be taken and this should
be left to the judgement of Council officers.
For some proposed uses it will be clear that the noise
and/or lighting limits will not be an issue.
The latter would seem excessive for discretionary uses such
as visitor accommodation.
For others it will be clear that they could be an issue,
and a consultant’s report ought to be requested.
Seems excessive for uses such as offices, which would be
unlikely to exceed the noise standards.
If a pragmatic approach is not taken, then either:
34
•
lengthy and complicated planning scheme
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
•
X.3.1 A2 and A3
P14
Noise and lighting Use
Standards.
X.3.2 - Noise
HCC
provisions would be necessary; or
onerous application requirements would have
to apply to all planning applications regardless
of the fact they might clearly be unnecessary.
Similar comments to the above raised by P14 in regard to the
need for discretionary uses to be ‘discretionary’ even if meeting
all applicable acceptable solutions.
As above.
A1 is problematic. These comments apply to all noise
standards:
Explanation:
Is EMPCA the appropriate way to be managing environmental
harm, rather than through planning schemes?
What noise emissions are being referred to? Noise emissions
of the use approved? All noise emissions? What if the
background noise level already exceeds those permitted
levels? How will the average applicant know what the
background noise level is? Is it fair to make the applicant pay
to do a report to work out what the background noise levels
are? Is it fair that this is a permitted standard?
Discretionary uses are assessed against the zone
purpose statements which may provide a basis for
refusal even if all acceptable solutions are met.
Whilst EMPCA is ultimately the primary way to manage
environmental harm, there is a role for planning
schemes in the first instance to endeavour to arrange
uses spatially to separate potentially conflicting use.
The AS is not ambiguous, as it is scientifically
measurable.
As indicated above, a pragmatic approach by planning
officers would ensure proposed uses clearly not
generating noise should not have to prove it with a
specialist report.
In general this is too onerous a clause as well as ambiguous,
and should be reconsidered.
GENERAL COMMENTS – VISITOR ACCOMMODATION
Use Status.
Move Visitor Accommodation
to ‘permitted’ in a range of
STRPP
In many zones Visitor Accommodation is discretionary, yet
there is a Use Standard that provides a permitted pathway, (for
accommodation up to six adults, within existing buildings,
35
Recommend that Visitor Accommodation be permitted
in all zones where currently allowable.
Note that ‘a discretionary use’ is one designated as
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
zones.
A1 (a) and P1 (a)
GCC
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
where no parking issues are generated.
such by the Use Table. A permitted use that is subject
to a discretionary application because it seeks to
comply with a use or development standard by a
performance criteria instead of the acceptable solution
is still a permitted use. Such an application would
therefore not be subject to any ‘use standards for
discretionary uses’.
A1 (a) and P1(a) On the face of it A1(a) should satisfy P1(a),
but how it would do that is unclear, e.g. an existing building
could well be close to a boundary and overlook adjoining
property.
Not agree.
Suggest that A1(a) be changed to be more prescriptive in
terms of outcomes that will achieve P1(a), e.g. accommodation
buildings must be a minimum of xm from adjoining properties
and screening to x height must be provided between
accommodation buildings and adjoining property.
The principle of the acceptable solution is that visitor
accommodation that meets it will not have a
significantly greater impact than that of the existing
use, which would in most cases be residential. If there
is some degree of over-looking (which is common in
suburbia) then the fact that it is visitors rather than
permanent residents doing the overlooking would
make no appreciate difference in the vast majority of
cases.
If significant loss of privacy of adjoining properties is an
obvious issue, Councils can choose to apply
conditions.
Limit on size of Visitor
Accommodation for
Acceptable Solution.
HCC
How do we determine occupancy capacity? Is getting them to
state that they will not rent the property to more than 6 adults
sufficient? Does this mean that they can have 6 adults and as
many people under the age of 18 as they want and be
permitted?
36
Agree this is an issue. The idea is to put a cap on the
number of people accommodated under a permitted
pathway. The currently proposed words would indeed
allow any number of people under 18.
A clearer and simpler alternative would be to specify a
maxim floor area as per the current City of Hobart
planning Scheme 1982.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Change A1(c) to:
2
(c) has a maximum floor area of 160m .
Limit on size of Visitor
Accommodation for
Acceptable Solution.
GCC
How is this interpreted on for example a site that has units on
it? is it 6 persons per unit or 6 units per parent title? Does it
matter when interpreting this clause if units are owned by
individual residents or if multiple units are owned by one
entity? How would it work if multiple units are owned by
individual owners but a cooperative type scenario runs all the
units as one establishment?
As worded the provision applies to the whole site. If
one unit in a complex had a permit for a holiday unit
accommodating 6 adults subsequent applications for
visitor accommodation in other units would need to
demonstrate compliance with the PC. See comment
above.
Limit on size of Visitor
Accommodation for
Acceptable Solution.
GCC
P1(b), how does one asses 'be of an intensity that respects the
character of use of the area;'?
Refer to the objective if unclear about intent of a PC.
Limit on size of Visitor
Accommodation for
Acceptable Solution.
GCC
A1 (c) suggest that the limit be for 6 guests. By limiting it to '6
adults', one could have a scout camp with 6 adults and 60
children...... Maybe ok on Rural Resource land, but not
necessarily on rural living land.
Agree
Change. See comment above.
Change A1(c) to:
2
(c) has a maximum floor area of 160m .
Discretion to waive parking
requirement in Performance
Criterion.
HCC
There is no discretion to waive the requirement for onsite
parking, which will mean that many heritage places could not
be used for visitor accommodation (they often do not have
parking, or adequate parking).
For clarity, A1 (b) and P1 (c) should refer to “any
parking spaces required pursuant to the Parking and
Access Code”. If a waiver of parking spaces is
determined to be acceptable under that code, then P1
(c) becomes a non-issue.
P1 (b) and (c)
GCC
P1, suggest that (b) and (c) be reversed in order, so that they
'align' better with the order in A1.
Agree.
P1(d) is impact on a shared private right of way a planning
concern, or is that a matter between owners?
Answer:
P1(d)
GCC
37
Swap the order of P1 (b) and (c).
Could be an issue in some limited circumstances.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Absolute limit on number of
visitors.
GCC
Setbacks for use – camping
and mobile homes.
GCC
Typo
GCC
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
P1: Suggest that there be an absolute max limit on visitor
accommodation, e.g. it is not appropriate for example a major
developer seeking to construct a 'Sapphire' look alike
accommodation in the Rural Living zone, better to close the
loophole, by for example allowing a max of 5 tent / mobile
home sites, or 3 cabins or a max total of 15 guests.
Not agree.
Camping or mobile home sites do not require the construction
of a building, how can we control setbacks for those uses?
Answer:
P1 (d) delete the 's' from 'impacts'.
Agree. Change.
Several of the P1 subclauses would act to limit
excessively-large developments in various zones.
By condition having regard to the zone purpose
statements.
GENERAL COMMENTS – LOCAL SHOP (MULTIPLE ZONES)
Size limitation for ‘local shop’
HCC
Local shop is defined in 4.1 as having a maximum size of
200m2, it is better if the size limitation is contained in the use
standards rather than the definition.
Explanation:
The definition in 4.1.3 has been set by the TPC
Advisory Committee as one of the new standard
statewide definitions. The Southern Regional will have
to accept it as it is, (noting that it may change as a
result of hearings into the other regions’ planning
schemes).
Most southern councils do not accept the 200m2 size
as reasonable as an acceptable solution. Hence the
ability for Councils to provide for a smaller size in the
use standard.
Size limitation for ‘local shop’
HCC
Also; 'local shop' is not referenced as a use defined in 4.1.3 in
Table 8.2.
38
Agree.
Table 8.2 – definition of General retail and hire – needs
to mention local shop.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
Size limitation for ‘local shop’
From
GCC
Comment or Suggestion
The definition for a local shop is max 200m2. As such this
standard is superfluous. If a council wanted to lower the floor
area limit, this would be better done as a qualification in the
use table (given that there is no performance criteria anyway!)
Regional Project Response
Explanation:
The definition in 4.1.3 has been set by the TPC
Advisory Committee as one of the new standard
statewide definitions. The Southern Regional will have
to accept it as it is, (noting that it may change as a
result of hearings into the other regions’ planning
schemes).
Most southern councils do not accept the 200m2 size
as reasonable as an acceptable solution. Hence the
ability for Councils to provide for a smaller size in the
use standard.
GENERAL COMMENTS – EXTERNAL COLOURS
Design, in rural / rural living
zones:
HCC
Current (optional) wording:
“Exterior building surfaces
must be non-reflective and
coloured using dark toned
colours specified in AS2700:
2100 Colour Standards for
General Purposes.”
Design, in business zones:
Current wording:
Re: A2 AS2700: 2011 Colour Standards for General Purposes
does not specify dark toned colours. Paint manufacturers do
specify the light reflectance value of their colours so suggest
this standard be worded as follows:
The TRG agreed on 21 August 2013 that the standard
should be changed as suggested.:
Exterior building surfaces must be coloured using colours with
a light reflectance value not greater than 40 percent.
This standard should replace all of the acceptable solutions
where AS2700 is mentioned.
HCC
Muted tones is too subjective for an AS, issue could be
addressed through a light reflectivity standard.
“Walls of a building facing a
residential zone must be
39
Agreed, change standard as above.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
coloured in muted tones.”
GENERAL COMMENTS – MIXED USE / BUSINESS ZONES – DESIGN STANDARDS
X.4.3
HCC
Design
Window and door openings /
front façade at ground level,
awnings over footpaths.
A1 (b) and (f) should not apply to residential development in
this zone, such standards are more appropriate for commercial
uses. This comment applies in all commercial zones where
these design standards are used.
Explanation:
The Use Table provides for residential use to be
permitted only if above ground floor level in the
business zones. Residential use at ground floor is
discretionary.
Therefore, the application may as well seek to comply
with this standard through the performance criteria,
and vary the acceptable solution requirements.
Modify standard 15.4.3 in the Mixed Use Zone where
some schemes have made residential permitted at
ground floor level.
X.4.4
HCC
Design
Passive surveillance
A1 (b) is not appropriate to apply to residential development.
This comment applies in all commercial zones where this
design standard is used.
Explanation:
The Use Table provides for residential use to be
permitted only if above ground floor level.
Residential use at ground floor is discretionary.
Therefore, the application may as well seek to comply
with this standard through the performance criteria,
and vary the acceptable solution requirements.
GENERAL COMMENTS – CODES
Codes and discretion
P14
Some of the codes apply to development but then either
exempt certain development or provide a permitted pathway
through the Acceptable Solutions. If this is the case again
40
If a development complies with all acceptable solutions
in a Code it would be permitted (assuming there are no
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
(assuming there are no other discretions triggered) should this
development not be considered Permitted and thus not
advertised?
Regional Project Response
other discretions triggered).
GENERAL COMMENTS – HAZARDS CODES: WHERE THERE IS NO MAPPING OF THE HAZARD.
Hazards codes with no
mapping.
HCC
Some hazards have no codes and some hazard codes have
no mapping and so will not be adopted. However if we
suspect, or have a suitably qualified person confirm there is a
hazard likely to affect a property, we need a head of power to
address this, similar to Principle 22 in the City of Hobart
Planning Scheme 1982.
Bushfire is the most obvious example. However it is
understood the State will not allow its bushfire mapping
to become a scheme overlay, but are willing to assist a
Council developing its own overlay.
Many current schemes provide a safety net clause
along the lines of Principle 22 of the CHPS 1982.
However, it is understood the State Template
philosophy is that either by mapped overlay or by
textural description, codes should be clear regarding
where they apply.
Nevertheless, it is agreed that the Regional Model
Scheme provisions should contain such a clause within
the inland flooding code.
GENERAL COMMENTS – CODE OVERLAYS – POOR QUALITY OF GIS OVERLAY INFORMATION SUPPLIED TO THE REGION
Poor Quality of GIS Overlay
Information Supplied to the
Region
GCC
Currently GIS data supplied to the region for use in overlays
have significant flaws, severely limiting their use in analysis or
web mapping applications.
Explanation:
Attributes are poorly structured and metadata is absent. The
offending layers need to be sent back to source for refinement
under guidance from the TPC. This cannot be fixed up later. It
Planning authorities will need to modify and improve
the layers, as best they can, for:
41
Resource constraints and time limitations do not permit
significant refinement of these layers, generally.
•
Waterways and Coastal Protection.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
•
must be fixed before use.
The following overlays are particularly affected:
•
•
•
•
Regional Project Response
Waterways and wetlands
Landslide (too fine grained & includes the low risk
category, which is not triggered under the Code. There
is a 10m cell size and often one cell of “low” is
surrounded by other cells of “high”. Polygons are
incorrectly configured topologically.
Flooding (too fine grained near the coast).
Refugia (requires simplification).
It is recommended that extensive ‘cleaning’ and
standardising of the data is carried out prior to distribution
to individual councils. This would require specialist
expertise and active collaboration with the TPC, dataset
suppliers and councils. Datasets would then be fit for
purpose as Overlays, maintainable by councils and
deployable via the LIST and other web mapping
applications.
A key example of the poverty of the data is the Wetlands
and Waterways Overlay, which ignores 10km of streams in
Collinsvale and Glenlusk alone and leaves significant areas
of coastline unprotected as it has used a different definition
of the coast to the standard cadastral definition.
42
Refugia.
It has always been acknowledged that both of these
layers need input and subsequent modification at the
local level, particularly:
•
•
where the waterway buffers pass through
urban areas;
where the refugia areas are cut by
infrastructure or other development that will
prevent the backward migration of the
saltmarsh.
Whilst it is acknowledged these layers have
deficiencies, they are a great improvement on similar
information in existing planning schemes.
The landslide layers and the coastal inundation layers
are being provided by the State as part of working
towards a standard statewide approach for dealing
with these risks. Since the public exhibition of the
proposed planning schemes these layers have been
further refined by the State. The region, and the
Councils, will have to work with these layers as they
are – noting that the State will further develop its whole
approach to dealing with these issues in planning
schemes and it is very likely this will result in formal
statewide codes in the not too distant future.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
GENERAL COMMENTS – USE TABLES
Ancillary dwelling
Terminology – qualifications in
Use Tables.
Qualifications from regional
and local origins not appearing
in the same cell.
GCC
GCC
GCC
Ancillary dwelling does not need to be separately mentioned
in any of the use tables as the template definition of single
dwelling includes ancillary dwelling.
Agree.
Qualifications don't flow on from each other, e.g. there may be
multiple 'only if' or 'except' lead ins for one use class, does that
legally make sense? It is suggested that the sentence
construction for qualifications be reviewed by both from a legal
and a plain English point of view (as an aside, it may be that
this issue would all but be resolved if we went back to 'defined
use' based use tables as opposed to 'use class' based use
tables)
‘Only if’ is used before a use type, ‘except if’ is used in
relation to use status (ie no permit required or
permitted) or if there is an exception to the ‘only if’
uses. This approach is appropriate provided that it is
used consistently.
Qualifications for the same use class but of a different origin
class (regional, local etc) end up in a different row below the
box with the use class in it, but there is no use class in front of
the second qualification. Our assumption is that this will be
interpreted as a qualification that applies to the use class in the
row above. Is that a legally correct assumption? Or is it in fact
a qualification that does not apply to any use class at all? Apart
from the concern about the legal interpretation, it also looks
'messy' Suggest that Icon provide a software solution that
merges the cells where qualifications are provided from
multiple origins for a single use class.
This is a CMS issue.
43
Remove these references.
The State Template principle appears to be that
Ancillary Dwelling use is to be considered part of, and
no different to, Single Dwelling use.
The Use Tables to be reviewed to ensure consistency.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
Duplication of Water and
Sewer Industry Act
exemptions.
From
GCC
Comment or Suggestion
The Water and Sewer Industry Act exempts some of the work
contemplated by the definition for Minor Utilities. As such, the
Permitted as of Right status duplicates that Act, this is contrary
to Drafting Guideline 2.2:
Regional Project Response
Agree.
Refer issue to TPC.
“(a) Planning Schemes should not duplicate
approval processes from other statutory or
regulatory regimes.
(b) Where appropriate, approvals required under
other legislation may be noted in footnotes,
(which do not form a statutory part of planning
schemes).”
It is recommended that the TPC reviews the definition for Minor
Utilities, and that we provide a footnote with each use table to
explain the matters covered by the Water and Sewer Industry
Act.
GENERAL COMMENTS – DRIVEWAY GRADIENT
Provision needed to assess
driveway gradient.
GCC
There are no provisions that allow us to consider the gradient
of a driveway, either at the time of development or at the time
of subdivision. I suggest that we need to change a clause in
the Parking and Access Code (from memory E7.6.2) and add
additional provisions in the subdivision standards (my
comments are in the clause for lot design in the low density res
zone
GENERAL COMMENTS – ‘COMMUNITY LIVING’
44
Explanation:
The issue is addressed in E6.7.2 A1 and would apply
to subdivision.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
Proposed new residential use
definition:
From
CCC
‘Community living’
Comment or Suggestion
The establishment of the “Community Living” use definition
within the existing Clarence Planning Scheme was a
progressive action to recognise that the benefits of
community/communal living arrangements should not be age
restricted to the elderly in “Retirement Villages”.
Regional Project Response
The Template defines residential as; ‘use of land for
self contained or shared living accommodation’. This
would clearly include community living or co-housing.
Unless the term is to be used in a use qualification
there is little benefit in adding the definition.
The Community Living use definition is unfortunately not
included in the new model scheme template.
There is a “Communal residence” definition is in the template:
“use of land for a building to accommodate persons who are
unrelated to one another and who share some parts of the
building. Examples include a boarding house, residential
college and residential care home”.
This definition however does not reflect the character of
Community Living, which is primarily a cluster of independent
dwellings together with common buildings and facilities. The
use is often called “co-housing”.
If the model scheme template cannot be altered perhaps it is
possible to include within the regional provisions “community
living” or “co-housing” as additional examples within the
Residential Use class.
Inclusion of the concept of
‘intentional communities’ /
‘eco-villages’
P2, P7 &
CG4
Submissions suggest providing for the creation of ‘intentional’
communities within the southern regional planning framework,
ie ‘eco villages’ in urban or rural areas.
45
These submissions have some merit but the drafting of
appropriate provisions would require significant
research and consultation which is not possible for this
iteration of the regional planning provisions given the
timeframe and resources of the regional planning
project. The scope does exist for S43A amendment
applications and Particular Purpose Zones may be
used to facilitate this form of development outside of
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
the urban area in the future should suitable projects be
identified. There are no limitations on ‘eco-villages’
being developed in existing urban areas, they would be
considered as any other form of residential
development.
GENERAL COMMENTS – CHECKING OF THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PROVISIONS WITH REGIONAL POLICIES
Consistency of the Provisions
with Regional Policies
GCC
There is a need for a conscious audit to be undertaken to
ensure that the regional provisions are effective in
operationalising the regional policy statements in order to avoid
any gaps or inconsistencies.
Noted.
GENERAL COMMENTS – CHECKING INTERNAL CONSISTENCY OF ZONE AND CODE PURPOSE STATEMENTS WITH USE TABLES AND
STANDARDS
Internal Consistency of Zone
and Code Purpose
Statements with Use Tables
and Standards
GCC
There is a need also for the internal consistency of zone and
code provisions to be checked.
Noted.
Zone and code purpose statements should not be left
“hanging”. They must all be operationalised through use status
or use or development standards.
Use or development standards must also be checked for
internal consistency to ensure that acceptable solutions and
performance criteria are consistent in scope and style and do
not exceed the scope of the objective for the standard.
GENERAL COMMENTS – ENSURING CONSISTENCY BETWEEN EQUIVALENT STANDARDS IS MAINTAINED THROUGH THE REVISION
PROCESS
46
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
Ensuring Consistency
Between Equivalent
Standards is Maintained
From
GCC
Comment or Suggestion
It will be important to ensure that consistency is maintained
between equivalent standards across Zones or Codes unless
there is a conscious planning reason for not doing so.
Otherwise, the revision process has the potential to squander
some of the consistency gains made through the initial drafting
of regional provisions.
Regional Project Response
Noted.
GENERAL COMMENTS – OVER-SPECIFICATION IN REGIONAL ZONE PURPOSE STATEMENTS
Over-specification in Regional
Zone Purpose Statements
GCC
There is a level of over-specification in regional zone purpose
statements.
First, there are zone purpose statements that have been
designed with fields for inclusion of place names. This makes
no sense from a standardisation point of view and is
unnecessary from an operational point of view because the
areas to which the zone is to apply is already identified
spatially on the planning scheme maps.
Agree, modify these statements.
Examples include the zone purpose statements for the Local,
General and Central Business Zones.
Second, there is over specification that unnecessarily narrows
the potential application of a zone or is not intended to be
effected via use or development controls is simply
unnecessary.
Examples include:
•
Provision for horse trail linkages in the Environmental
Living Zone (14.1.1.5). Surely this is a local desired
future character issue not a regional zone purpose
issue.
47
Agree, make optional.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
•
•
The Zone purpose statements for the Village Zone are
far too specific.
The need to specify the mix of activities for the
Commercial Zone. This is very difficult to do in the
Glenorchy context, where there are significant areas of
such use and no real benefit to be gained by seeking
to replicate what is already specified in the use table.
Regional Project Response
Most of these are optional.
This is optional, mix of uses does not need to be
described.
GENERAL COMMENTS – INTERACTION OF CODES WITH THE CONTENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Determining where a code
applies
GCC
Many Codes will apply by description rather than relying upon
identification using overlay maps.
This will be problematic when the “Enquire” report generator
module of the Content Management System is enacted – as it
will not be easy to identify in a clear and concise sense
whether a particular code applies to a particular use or
development.
Explanation.
Codes that apply by planning scheme overlay will be
readily identified where they apply.
Codes that apply by textural description will apply
everywhere, in first instance, and this will be the
answer that the CMS Enquire module will need to
automatically provide to an enquiry. A non-statutory
map will enable a more detailed level of questioning,
but this should not be an automated CMS process.
GENERAL COMMENTS – LEGAL PERUSAL
Legal checking
GCC
It will be important for the revised regional model planning
scheme provisions to be subject to another round of legal
perusal.
Available time will not allow for additional checking.
GENERAL COMMENTS – SPORT AND RECREATION USES
Status of ‘sports and
P23 and
It would be better to make Sports and Recreation permitted or
48
Agree with the general basis of this submission.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
recreation’ in all zones
CG6
discretionary in more zones and use the Qualifications, Use
and Development Standards to control the best match for each
zone. Surely it is an oversight that Sports and Recreation is
not at least discretionary for those areas not covered by
reserve management plans in the EM Zone.
Review status of ‘sports and recreation’ in each zone.
General – sports and
recreation in zones
CG3
Zoning of natural areas currently used for recreational
activities needs to provide for future development, upgrade
and expansion of recreational activities such as walking tracks
and mountain bike tracks. For example under the current
proposed zoning Wellington Park would not be able to be
developed further which would prevent expansion of the
Glenorchy Mountain Bike Park or the implementation of track
projects identified in the Greater Hobart Mountain Bike
Strategy.
Both the Open Space and Recreation Zones provide
for sports and recreation uses. Development in
Wellington Park is subject to the Wellington Park
Specific Area Plan which does provide for mountain
bike facilities. No change recommended.
Cycling
South
GENERAL COMMENTS – RURAL ZONES / AGRICULTURE
Application of rural zones
Setbacks
P9
P85
This submission provides comment on issues relating to the
need for conformity between Councils on determining the
extent and nature of Rural Zones with particular reference to
land use, land classification and minimum Lot sizes within both
the Rural and Significant Agricultural Zones.
A number of valid issues are raised but more related to
the implementation of the STRLUS. Consider as part
of next STRLUS review.
We note the increase to setbacks on land adjacent to Rural
Resource and Significant Agricultural Zones, and support the
Support noted.
49
Note that the current STRLUS recognises distinct
subregions with respect to rural land and
acknowledges that a ‘one size fits all’ approach to
planning scheme provisions may not be appropriate for
all issues.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
increase to buffers on non-productive land for the benefit of
agricultural production.
GENERAL COMMENTS – MARINE INFRASTRUCTURE
P69
This submission is in relation to redevelopment being
considered for a coastal site that includes aquaculture facilities
including uses for slipway facilities for maintenance and repair
of boats, lobster and abalone processing facilities. Further
uses ancillary to marine activities including shore based
facilities for selective tuna fishing; tourism facilities for ‘catch
and dine’ fishing charters; café/restaurant featuring locally
sourced fish and local produce retail outlet; and boat building.
Many of these activities are dependent on water frontage to
operate efficiently.
It is considered that an integrated aquaculture, fish
processing, boatbuilding, tourism and retail facility
dependent upon a coastal location would be best
facilitated by way of a Particular Purpose Zone. It is
difficult to accommodate this range of uses in the
Environmental Management or Open Space Zones
usually found along the coast. The Particular Purpose
Zone has been used in other interim planning schemes
in the region for uses such as the Battery Point
Slipyards and the Franklin Marine and tourism centre.
The submission considers that the need for marine
infrastructure to be in specific locations and the associated
activities has not been properly considered in the application of
zones, and their associated use and development standards.
Note that the coast-related codes include special
allowances for ‘development dependant on a coastal
location’ pursuant to the intent of the State Coastal
Policy.
The Tasmanian Forest Practices System gains statutory
authority from the Forest Practices Act 1985. It does not
require forest operations of less than 100 tonnes or less than 1
hectare to have a FPP. These are never commercial forestry
operations at an industrial scale – more likely they are
domestic firewood harvest for personal use by the landowner
and such like. The requirement for a FPP therefore unfairly
This is an exemptions issue which is part of the
Template.
GENERAL COMMENTS - FORESTRY
Need for a (certified) Forest
Practices Plan for small
operations – less than 100
tonnes or 1 hectare.
PFT
50
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
penalises these landowners.
Reference to ‘“... forest
operations in accordance with
a (certified) Forest Practices
Plan’; change to “... forest
operations in accordance with
the Forest Practices Act”.
PFT
Further, there are also many very small areas of forest on
farms, usually plantation planted by the landowner, that exceed
the exemption size (of 100 tonnes or 1 hectare) that negates
the need for a FPP. Unfortunately, preparation of an FPP is
expensive with a very high fixed cost component regardless of
the operational area. Frequently these small areas are left
orphaned and unharvested because the planning cost is
prohibitive although the landowner may have a market or a
need to remove them.
The issue raised is valid.
PFT is currently working on a project to develop a new type of
simplified plan, still within the statutory system created by the
Forest Practices Act, to make it easier to harvest these areas if
they are straightforward. If special values were identified then a
full FPP would be required. This new plan may not be explicitly
called a “Forest Practises Plan” and hence may fall outside
the current wording in the ordinances.
This would need to be changed at the State level.
However, the State Template exemptions currently use
the term ‘Forest Practices Plan’, and the regional
provisions ought to be consistent with the State
provisions.
We suggest, therefore, that where ordinances call up “... forest
operations in accordance with a (certified) Forest Practices
Plan” it be changed to “... forest operations in accordance with
the Forest Practices Act”.
General support.
DIER
With respect to forestry, the Southern Tasmanian Regional
Land Use Strategy appears to have been applied with
reasonable consistency across the Southern Councils. From
DIER’s perspective, forestry appears to be relatively
unencumbered where it is expected to be a key activity (i.e.
within the Rural Resource Zone). DIER commends the Council
on the exemption for Forestry of the application of relevant
51
Noted.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Codes (in particular, the Biodiversity, Water and Scenic Codes)
where a Forest Practices Plan is in place.
No mention of Private Timber
Reserves
Forest Practices Act
DIER
P85
DIER notes that all Southern Region Schemes appear to
ignore the existence of Private Timber Reserves, which are
exempt from Planning Schemes (s20(7)(a) of the Land Use
Planning and Approvals Act 1993 provides that nothing in any
planning scheme or interim order affects the management of
land declared as a private timber reserve under the Forest
Practices Act 1985). The schemes should be annotated to alert
planners, applicants and approving bodies of this fact.
We support the planning scheme's recognition of the primary
regulatory system for forestry, being the Forest Practices Act,
and encourage removal of planning scheme provisions that
duplicate the provisions of the Forest Practices Act (eg.
streams, biodiversity).
Explanation:
The fact that legislation exempts forestry on PTRs from
the need for approval under planning scheme means
that planning schemes can ignore them
It is not appropriate that the text-proper deals with
PTRs. However, a non-statutory footnote could be
used to alert users to the fact that forestry on PTRs is
exempt from planning schemes.
Noted.
GENERAL COMMENTS – GOOD DRAFTING
Expressing limits.
General phrasing of
standards.
GCC
GCC
'xxx must not exceed yyy'. Should be 'xxx must not be more
than', the latter uses three words, 'be more than', where one,
'exceed', would do. This is a typical expression in for example
height standards)
Some objectives for standards are very limited and provide
insufficient guidance on how to assess performance criteria,
others almost repeat (part of) the performance criteria content.
Others are so open ended that they provide no guidance at all,
52
Not agree.
Legal advice is that ‘must be not more than’ is the
clearest phrasing, legally.
(This is already the subject of a drafting guideline –
No.51).
Noted.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
for example 'provide an appropriate level of service'. Some are
a single 'fluffy' sentence, others use quite detailed list
numbering. Suggest that (perhaps with the use of the slicing
tool) objectives for standards are reviewed and a guideline is
created to create a common approach and method of
expression.
Exemptions – phrasing.
Ungrouping of some
standards.
GCC
GCC
Should lead ins that have exceptions be drafted so that the
exception comes first? If so, this needs to be a drafting
guideline and the document needs to be checked for
compliance (see for example comment against 12.5.1 A1)
Not considered necessary, approach used is
consistent with PD4 drafting.
'Un-complicate' standards: If we would like to create greater
consistency between standards within zones, between zones
and between schemes in the region and across the state, than
suggest that standards not be grouped with multiple 'topics'
included in the one standard like for example in 13.4.3 design
standard, which includes 4 distinct topics. Ungrouping will also
mean that we can 'fine tune' the 'enquire' module more, e.g. if
a proposal does not involve fill or excavation, than proposed
standard 4 will not come up in the result. E.g. suggest that we
create individual standards where possible, e.g. 13.4.3 would
be broken down into the following 4 standards:
At the TRG meeting on 22 August 2013 it was agreed
that we do not have the time or resources to do this at
this point in time. Because there could be state-wide
ramifications and benefits, this is better left to a second
iteration of the standardisation of planning schemes
process.
(1) Location of buildings and works
(2) External building materials
(3) Gross Floor area
(4) Fill and excavation works
This is a suggested approach to be applied throughout the
ordinance including subdivision standards.
53
(This is already the subject of a drafting guideline –
No.32).
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
Scope of zone purpose
statements to be sufficient to
assess an application.
From
GCC
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Zone purpose statements: Are zone purpose statements to be
considered in the assessment of discretionary development
and if so, than all zone purpose statements need to be
sufficient to provide guidance on those matters (they currently
don't do that).
Clause 8.10.2 of the Template provides for
consideration of the zone purpose but only in regard to
discretionary use, not development.
It is not agreed that the scope of zone purpose
statements should be sufficient to assess an
application. This would lead to very lengthy
statements.
Role of objectives to
standards.
GCC
In the same way, specific direction should be given on the
interpretation of individual standards, e.g. how and when do
objectives come into play?
Clause 7.5.4 of the Template provides for
consideration of the objective in a standard.
Proof reading.
GCC
Proof-reading, checking of phrasing, etc. of regional provisions
suggested.
Noted, this will be done as content amended in the
CMS.
The term 'home based business' is a defined term and needs
a dash: 'home-based business'. All incorrectly spelled
occurrences of this phrase need to be replaced, so that
hyperlinks work.
Agree, correct.
All tables should be on pages with the term Table in the
heading name (see comments on E1.5.1)
TRG has agreed that tables should be located at the
end of codes. Text in relevant provisions is to hyperlink to the relevant table.
GENERAL COMMENTS – TYPOS
'home based business'
GCC
GENERAL COMMENTS – TABLES
Location of Tables
GCC
Where to locate tables on the table of contents: currently table
are located in all sorts of places, for example they are included
on pages that have a standard on them, they are located as a
child page below a standard and they are located in various
54
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
locations below the headings for 'use standards', 'development
standards for buildings and works' or 'development standards
for subdivision'.
A convention needs to be established in relation to the location
of tables in relation to standards, options include:
(i) each table has the relevant standard as their parent, (this
may be preferable if someone wants to print the table
concurrent with the standard, using child pages). or
(ii) each table has the same parent as the parent of the
relevant standard. (this may be preferable, because it
means that a person can quickly check a table, without
having to do an extra click to find the table below the
standard), or
(iii) if (ii), should all tables sit at the end of all standards with
the under the generic relevant heading (e.g. 'use
standards', 'development standards for building or works' ,
or 'subdivision standards') or
(iv), if (ii) should the table heading follow the relevant
standard?
(v) should all table sit at the end of all standards (e.g. after all
subdivision standards), with the code or zone names as the
parent?
Hyper Linking Tables
GCC
There should be hyperlinks to tables when a standard quotes a
table, so that if someone is reading a standard that quotes a
table, they can click on the hyperlink and the table pops up in
another screen. This would mean that the viewer can easily
cross reference between the standard and the table. This
55
Agree.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
would work well especially if the same table were to be used
for multiple standards, e.g. for development and subdivision
standards (not sure if that occurs or not)
2.0 PLANNING SCHEME PURPOSE
2.2.3
P58
The 8th dot point should read 'healthy communities'
Planning Scheme Purpose
Agree.
Change.
3.0 PLANNING SCHEME OBJECTIVES
3.0
P53
This submission has made a number of observations about the
regional objectives.
The regional objectives are derived from the STRLUS
and are consistent with that document. The comments
are more relevant to any future review of the STRLUS.
It should also be noted that the scheme objectives do
not carry any statutory weight in the administration of
the schemes.
3.0.1 - R Infrastructure:
'red' (c) has a typo - should be "charges"
Agree.
Regional Objectives
GCC &
IG4
3.0.1 - R Infrastructure:
IG4
Insert (d) Protecting land holding strategic and developed
mineral resources from encroachment of inappropriate
development by applying an attenuation buffer.
This issue is addressed in 3.05 Productive Resources.
TasWater
Regarding clause c under “Outcomes to be achieved by”... It is
unclear how the planning schemes can facilitate developer
charges for efficient infrastructure use? It might be more
accurate to say that the planning schemes facilitate efficient
infrastructure provision and service delivery by integrating land
use planning and infrastructure planning.
Planning schemes can facilitate developer charges for
efficient infrastructure use by allowing for such charges
in the zone provisions. The other outcomes cover the
second point.
Regional Objectives
3.0.1 - R Infrastructure:
Regional Objectives
Change.
56
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
3.0.3 - objectives - activity
centres
P3
Support the mention of cycling in the desired outcomes (a) and
(c) and how these could be achieved (e), (f) and (g)
Noted.
3.0.4 - R Economic
Infrastructure:
GCC
RJG - typo in 'red' (b) & (c) - "to recognise'.
Agree.
Change.
Regional Objectives
3.0.5 - R Productive
Resources: Regional
Objectives
P27
My particular concern is the omission in the draft of there being
any bio energy or bio fuel plant as an investment opportunity or
reality in the region. The forestry industry in total can and will
again be a major economic contributor to the State, especially
if it can adopt new markets.
Noted, although not mentioned in the objectives such a
development is not precluded in appropriate zones.
3.0.6 – R
GCC
d) implies that we need to have a Council policy that identifies
which vegetated values can not be damaged.
Yes.
Natural Environment
We don't have such policy so does this mean we need one? Or
can we rely on the offset code to pick up all vegetation types?
g) should 'or' be instead 'for'?
Regional Objectives
3.0.7 R
TasWater
Water Resources: Regional
Objectives
3.08 Objectives - healthy
communities
P3
Before a planning scheme imposes restrictions on the
free use and development of land, either the State or
the local Council ought to have a policy that confirms
the direction to do this.
There is no mention of catchments in this section.
Recommend:
Consider incorporation of catchments.
Agree.
Surprised that cycling did not rate a mention in this part,
however if the aim of the draft is to reduce duplication I could
possibly understand why.
This issue is addressed in:
57
(Assume: ‘drinking water catchments’)
3.10(a) An integrated open space and recreation
system that responds to existing and emerging needs
in the community and contributes to social inclusion,
community connectivity, community health and wellbeing, amenity, environmental sustainability and the
economy.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
3.0.9 - R Competitiveness:
From
GCC
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
'red' (c) is incomplete, suggest 'Applying the Major Tourism
Zone to major tourist sites’
Agree.
P105
No definition for extractive industry or industry is included at
Clause 4.1 of the draft interim planning scheme.
Extractive industry is a use class in Table 8.2, industry
falls within several use classes. No change to 4.1 is
required.
PFT
We recommend that “tree farming” be defined in all schemes
as “a privately owned area of forest land managed for
continuous production”.
‘Tree farming’ is included as an example in the
definition of ‘agriculture use’ in clause 4.1. In terms of
land use it is not clear what difference there is between
tree farming on private or public land.
Regional Objectives
Change.
4.0 INTERPRETATION
4.1.3
‘Extractive industry’ and
‘industry’
4.1.3
‘agricultural use’
template definition
Unlike “plantation forestry”, “tree farming” is undefined in all
twelve STCA draft planning schemes. This lack of definition
leads to difficulty in the interpretation of “agricultural Use”.
When a typical definition of “Tree Farming” is applied (e.g. “a
privately owned area of forest land managed for continuous
commercial production”) it can be interpreted as including
natural forests. Clearly defining “tree farming” in the schemes
will remove some concern.
4.1.3
‘amenity’ – template
definition
GCC
Should we add a footnote to the amenity definition that lists as
many examples of matters for consideration as possible, e.g.
the footnote could say: 'When assessing amenity, matters for
consideration may include, but are not necessarily limited to:
privacy, good solar access passive surveillance of public
spaces, streetscape, landscaping, quality of materials,
reflectivity, visual bulk, noise, light and other emissions etc.
etc.'
58
This is a State Template matter.
Refer comment to TPC.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
4.1.3
From
This is a State Template matter.
HCC
‘Crop raising’ is crop production in the definition of ‘Resource
development’ in 8.2
STRPP to convey this to the TPC, which has
jurisdiction over modifications to State Template
provisions.
HCC
‘Habitable building’ – this definition is an error, repeating the
definition of a habitable room. A habitable building is Class 1-9
of BCA.
This appears to be correct now in the CMS.
HCC
‘Watercourse’- this definition needs to include major piped
watercourses & drainage paths. The 1% AEP flood risk is not
removed by piping low flows – the overland flow path
conveying the rest of the flow remains part of the watercourse.
Draft Urban Drainage Bill defines waterway as “a creek, rivulet,
stream or other natural depression in the land into which rain
water flows”. The planning scheme should be consistent with
this.
This is a State Template definition. The comment is to
be referred to the TPC.
‘crop raising’ - template
definition.
4.1.3
‘habitable building - template
definition.
4.1.3
‘watercourse - template
definition.
There are some obvious problems in applying a consistent
definition of 'Watercourse' between codes that aim to deal with
either environmental values and/or flood risk.
4.1.3
Regional Project Response
Building area: this definition is unclear in terms of what the is
meant with 'plan of subdivision where buildings will be located'.
Do we need a definition for 'plan of subdivision', e.g. is it a
proposal plan, or is it a sealed plan, does the building area
have to shown on the sealed plan as a covenant??? We think
it should mean a sealed plan, and if that is the case, we should
use that term.
GCC
‘building area’ – template
definition
4.1.3
Comment or Suggestion
HCC
Local shop is defined in 4.1 as having a maximum size of
59
Refer comment to TPC.
It is agreed that the definition of ‘watercourse’ in
planning schemes - with respect to drainage issues should match that in any Urban Drainage Act.
However, should such an act be introduced, it may well
make planning scheme provisions dealing with this
issue redundant, and they can therefore be removed
from schemes.
In regard to planning scheme provisions dealing with
waterway values / natural values, it is not given that
the definition ought to be the same.
Explanation:
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
‘local shop’ – TPC
Committee definition.
Comment or Suggestion
200m2, it is better if the size limitation is contained in the use
standards rather than the definition.
Regional Project Response
The Region at the direction of the TPC Advisory
Committee added this definition, as a de facto statewide definition, flagging an intention to formally amend
it into the State Template in the future.
The incorporation of size limit in the use standards was
the Region’s originally preferred option, which would
allow recognition of various locally different
circumstances around the Region.
However, it should be quite possible for the (statewide)
definition of ‘Local Shop’ to set a 200 m floor limit, but
for a local Use Standard to require something less or
more.
4.1.3
GCC
‘local shop’ – TPC Committee
definition
The definition for a local shop is max 200m2, As such this
standard is superfluous. If a council wanted to lower the floor
area limit, this would be better done as a qualification in the
use table (given that there is no performance criteria anyway!)
Explanation:
This definition has been set by the TPC Advisory
Committee as one of the new standard statewide
definitions. The Southern Regional will have to accept
it as it is, (noting that it may change as a result of
hearings into the other regions’ planning schemes).
Most southern councils do not accept the 200m2 size
as reasonable as an acceptable solution. Hence the
ability for Councils to provide for a smaller size in the
use standard.
4.1.3
HCC
‘local shop’ – reference in
Table 8.2.
4.1.3
Taswater
Also 'local shop' is not referenced as a use defined in 4.1.3 in
Table 8.2.
Agree.
Definition of minor utilities only references water pipes. No
reference to sewer or water pump stations, sewers or water
This clause is part of the State Template and cannot
60
List ‘local shop’ in Table 8.2 under the General Retail
and Hire Use Class. This is a Template issue.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
‘minor utilities
4.13
4.1
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
storages
Recommendation:
Amend to water pipes and sewers, water pump stations, water
pump stations and storages (water reservoirs and tanks).
be amended by the STRPP.
P62
Definition of heritage / cultural environment needed.
Cultural heritage is defined in the E14 Historic Heritage
Code.
CG1
That ‘reserve’ be defined in the schemes and that the definition
include secure forms of private reserve as defined by
protection through a Conservation Covenant under the Nature
Conservation Act 2002 and/or a Private Sanctuary or Private
Nature Reserve status under the same Act.
Review need for definition of ‘reserve’ after zone
provisions revision.
The nature of this qualification only comprehends the
ownership of utility infrastructure by public entities only.
However, there are a number of private irrigation schemes and
minor utility providers that have operated in Tasmania.
This clause is part of the State Template and cannot
be amended by the STRPP.
TLC
‘reserve’
The comments will be passed on to the TPC.
Note: definition lists examples. Not an exclusive list.
5.0 GENERAL EXEMPTIONS
5.4.1
Maintenance and Repair of
Linear and Minor Utilities.
Hydro
Similarly, the recent experience of other states would suggest
that the privatisation of public utility infrastructure could occur
in the near future.
Notwithstanding, many of these exemptions are redundant
given a variety of exemptions existing under existing utility and
service industry regulation. This includes, but is not limited
to:
•
•
Water and Sewerage Industry Act 2008,
Electricity Supply Industry Act 1995,
61
The comments will be passed on to the TPC.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
•
•
Regional Project Response
Irrigation Clauses Act 1973,
Australian Postal Corporation Act 1989.
As such it is recommended that either exemptions such as
these be harmonised with the existing exemptions or removed
to avoid confusion.
In the case of exemptions relating to electricity and water
management, we propose to include a new exemption for
water and electricity entities mirroring the exemptions included
in other industry specific legislation.
5.4.1
Heading is grammatically clunky and does not align with
detailed text, e.g. Minor Utilities in heading and minor
infrastructure under (c)
This clause is part of the State Template and cannot
be amended by the STRPP.
The header sentence is difficult to understand, i.e. or a
corporation all the shares of which. The intent is understood,
but difficult to follow.
This clause is part of the State Template and cannot
be amended by the STRPP.
DIER
DIER is supportive of general exemption 5.4, which exempts
the maintenance and repair of roads and bridges from planning
approval.
Noted.
HCC
Include a supplementary provision about repair provided the
same materials are used where the work involves
infrastructure/elements listed in a heritage code not just
infrastructure anywhere in any heritage precinct.
This is not necessary.
TasWater
Maintenance and Repair of
Linear and Minor Utilities.
5.4.1
TasWater
Maintenance and Repair of
Linear and Minor Utilities.
5.4.1
Maintenance and Repair of
Linear and Minor Utilities.
5.4
State Exemption.
Maintenance and Repair of
Linear and Minor Utilities.
The comments will be passed on to the TPC.
The comments will be passed on to the TPC.
Given that it would be Councils that would be doing the
maintenance and repair of much of the infrastructure
covered by the exemption, internal Council processes
can ensure it is done in an appropriate way.
Note that if the HCC suggestion is adopted, this would
necessitate relocating this exemption to the Limited
62
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Exemptions.
Also note that any rewording of this clause needs to
correlate with the Heritage Code exemption E13.4.1(b)
5.5.1
Hydro
Maintenance and repair of
buildings
5.5.1 & 5.5.2:
TPC
Maintenance and repair of
buildings – particularly with
reference to properties listed
within the Heritage Code.
As identified in subsection 5.0.2, of the draft Schemes, nothing
in a planning scheme is to prevent the use of any building
which was erected before the coming into operation for any
purpose which it was lawfully being used immediately before
that coming into operation, or the maintenance or repair of
such a building. This includes a place or precinct listed in a
heritage code that is part of the Interim Scheme.
Planning schemes should not, and do not, prevent the
maintenance and repair of heritage listed buildings.
Results in a property listed within the Historic Heritage Code
being potentially repainted, even if unpainted, being exempt
from obtaining a permit. Contravenes the Heritage Code.
Clause 5.5.1 is part of the State Template and
therefore cannot be amended.
Integrate Clause 5.5.2 within Clause 5.5.1 to ensure ease of
comprehension and compliance with the Historic Heritage
Code.
They may, however, provide rules on how this should
be done.
For example, it may by inappropriate to re-clad a
heritage listed building in a different material.
Clause 5.5.2 was added by the STRPP to express its
position that 5.5.1 is in error in allowing recladding and
reroofing of heritage listed buildings in different
materials as an exempt activity.
The Southern Region welcomes the TPC advice to
integrate the two clauses, but notes that the TPC will
need acknowledge that this means altering a State
Template clause.
STRPP to nevertheless combine and rewrite the two
clauses.
5.6
State Exemption.
Temporary Buildings and
Works
HCC
Clause 5.6 - this needs to say 'provided the works do not result
in damage to a heritage listed place' (e.g. a temporary access
road through a historic garden).
63
Not agree.
If adopted, this would necessitate eliminating this
exemption altogether. Such a provision would not be
suitable as a Limited Exemption as it would involve an
assessment and a judgment to determine if the
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
temporary works would result in damage to a heritage
listed place.
In regard to the example given: Driving through a
heritage garden is different to building a road through a
heritage garden. The later would not be ‘temporary’ if it
involved works such as laying down a hardstand of
gravel to form the road.
It is suggested that a new subclause be added: “the
temporary building or works do not result in the
contravention of a condition of a permit for that
development when involving a place or precinct listed
in a heritage code that is part of this planning scheme.”
This may need to be put in section 6.
Finally, this is a State Template provision and will be
referred to the TPC for consideration.
5.8
HCC
State Exemption.
Strata Subdivision
This exemption needs extending to provide exemptions for
“Staged Development Schemes” and “Community
Development Schemes”.
Not agree.
“Staged Development Schemes” and “Community
Development Schemes” would fall under the umbrella
of ‘strata division’ and it is not necessary to amend this
clause.
If this is not the case, then the State would need to
amend this clause in order to follow through with its
apparent policy position that strata division is not a
land use planning matter.
5.8
State Exemption.
STRPP
This exemption should only apply to the urban zones.
In rural areas it will be used to divide land tenure in
contravention of rural zone subdivision standards.
64
This is a State Template issue and cannot be
amended by the STRPP.
The STRPP to raise this matter (again) with the TPC.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Strata Subdivision
5.9
Rural councils in particular retain many concerns with
the potential unintended outcomes that this clause may
produce.
HCC
State Exemption.
Demolition of Exempt
Buildings
5.10.1
Regional Exemption.
Signs exemption.
Signage Code exemptions
and the relationship with
General Exemptions
Regional Project Response
TPC
Clause 5.9.1 - Clarify that this would not apply to heritage
places because the erection wouldn't be exempt in the first
instance.
Not agree.
(Issue 1 – referrals to other clauses)
Not agree.
Clause 5.10.1 relies upon Table E17.1. Signs are only exempt
if they meet the Acceptable Solutions of the Signs Code.
Clause 6.2 of Planning Directive 1 requires exemptions to be
self-contained and not rely on any standards elsewhere in the
scheme.
The purpose of 5.10.1 is to clarify that signs exempted
from the Signs Code are also exempt from the whole
scheme. This relationship between the General and
Limited Exemptions and code exemptions has been
identified by the STRPP as a deficiency of the current
Template and cross-referencing needs to occur to
ensure that an exemption from a code is also an
exemption from the whole scheme.
Revise general exemption or reword the Signs Code to ensure
that the exemption is self-contained and does not refer to other
standards within the scheme.
Clarification is not necessary.
If the erection is not exempt in the first place, then
clause 5.9.1 would not apply.
This issue existing for the other codes and General
and Limited Exemptions will need to be expanded
accordingly.
To meet the request of the TPC, 5.10.1 could be
expanded to include a large proportion of the Signs
Code. Whilst this could be done, it is suggested the
current simple referral to the signs code is a more
efficient drafting technique and does not bring undue
complexity into the scheme that the general prohibition
against referrals to other clauses.
65
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
5.10.1
From
TPC
Regional Exemption.
Comment or Suggestion
(Issue 2 – exemptions relying on a degree of assessment)
Clause 5.10.1 relies upon Table E17.1. Signs are only exempt
if they meet the Acceptable Solutions of the Signs Code.
Clause 6.2 of Planning Directive 1 requires exemptions to be
self-contained and not rely on any standards elsewhere in the
scheme.
Signs exemption.
Signage Code - and the
relationship with Table E17.1
Revise general exemption or reword the Signs Code to ensure
that the exemption is self-contained and does not refer to other
standards within the scheme.
Regional Project Response
This relates to exempt status for certain signs relying
on complying with acceptable solutions in the signs
code, which therefore implies a degree of assessment.
The Signs Code provides a table of exempt signs, but
E17.4.1 states that these signs must also meet
acceptable solutions and signs standards in the code
in order to retain exempt status.
The acceptable solutions and signs standards in the
code are straightforward and, it is contended, readily
determinable as to whether a proposed sign complies
with them. Conferring exempt status through this
method will be clear and simple, as exemptions ought
to be under the Template.
However, it is recognised that 5.10.1 only refers to
Table E17.1. It should instead refer to clause E17.4 in
order to ensure the intent is retained in full.
In summary, the TPC suggestion is dismissed, but
5.10.1 should be changed to refer to E17.4 instead of
Table E17.1.
5.11.2
Regional Exemption.
Community garden on a public
reserve.
HCC
This clause is inconsistent with the Limited Exemptions in
Section 6. The exemption of a Community Garden on any
public reserve, yet requiring a permit to install a new rubbish
bin in the Hobart Rivulet Park (within 30m of a waterway)
makes little sense.
Not agree.
A community garden in a listed place such as St David’s Park
should not be exempt.
The public reserve owner (always a public authority
and almost always a Council) should be free to decide
which kind of public gardens public reserves should be
66
Community gardens should be considered as a
legitimate community use of a public reserve - as just
another type of ‘garden’ under the Use Class ‘Passive
Recreation’.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
used for. This is not a land use planning matter, as a
community garden should not be considered to be a
LUPAA ‘change of use’. Whether a community
garden, or some other type of public garden, is
established on a particular park should be a matter for
Councils to determine outside the statutory land use
planning system.
Internal Council process should be trusted to ensure
community gardens are not inappropriately established
in parks such as St David’s Park.
It is agreed that it is ridiculous that a permit should be
required to install a new rubbish bin in the Hobart
Rivulet Park within 30m of a waterway, and the State
Exemptions should ensure this is not the case.
Proposed additional
exemption.
Hydro
As an Electricity Entity and manager of hydro-electricity power
schemes, Hydro Tasmania is afforded exemptions from the
need for planning permits in certain circumstances through the
Electricity Supply Industry Act 1995 and the Land Use
Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (in conjunction with the
Water Management Act 1999). As such we believe that it
would be appropriate to harmonise or replicate these
exemptions to provide for a transparent approach to the
understanding of all land use and development.
In doing so we would recommend inclusion of the following
general exemptions:
5.13 Electricity and Water Infrastructure
5.13.1 Where an electricity entity proposes to carry out
work on electricity infrastructure comprising the following
67
No change to the statutory text considered necessary:
If the proposed new provisions just reflect exemptions
provided by legislation, then it is not necessary to
include them in planning schemes.
For the purposes of facilitating understanding,
however, it would be beneficial to include the
suggested provisions as a non-statutory footnotes, (as
allowed for under the State Template).
This will ensure users of planning schemes are aware
of these exemptions provided by other legislation.
It will also negate the need to amend planning
schemes if any of the other legislation changes.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
work:
(a) the removal, repair, maintenance or modification of
existing electricity generation facilities, powerlines for
the transmission, distribution or supply of electricity;
(b) the removal, repair, maintenance or modification of an
existing substation or a transformer associated with
the transmission, distribution or supply of electricity;
(c) the installation or erection of powerlines along any
public street, road or highway and on public land for
the distribution or supply of electricity;
(d) the laying, removal, repair, maintenance or
modification of any underground cable for the
distribution or transmission of electricity;
(e) the clearing or lopping of trees, branches or other
vegetation to the extent necessary for the protection of
electricity infrastructure or public safety;
(f) the installation and erection of any substation or
transformer associated with the distribution or supply
of electricity.
5.13.2 A water entity administering a water management
plan or a water district is not required to hold a permit or
special permit under this Act for any activities which are –
(a) necessary for the operation, maintenance, repair,
minor modification, upgrading or replacement of
existing works managed or owned by that water entity;
or
(b) required urgently to protect persons from injury or
68
Regional Project Response
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
those works from damage so long as the activities will
not cause serious environmental harm.
5.13.3 Any works ancillary to, and necessary to facilitate
the construction of a Dam for which a Dam Works Permit
has been granted under Part 8 of the Water Management
Act 1999, including but not limited to: roads, bridges, site
offices, depots, quarries and concrete batching.
General comment.
TasWater
Some Councils have exemptions in their planning schemes.
(Refer to Clarence City Council as an example of workable
exemptions.) While we are not supporting a blanket exemption,
consideration should be given to having exemption for
connections to infrastructure mains say in road reserves or for
minor utility work.
Recommendation:
For assessment of the Clarence Council Planning Scheme
provisions with further discussion between TasWater (South)
and STCA recommended.
No change to the statutory text considered necessary:
Clause 6.2.2 of the Template exempts the provision by
or on behalf of the State Government, a Council, a
statutory authority, or a corporation all the shares of
which are held by or on behalf of the State or by a
statutory authority, of the following utilities and
infrastructure:
(a) electricity, gas, sewerage, stormwater and water
reticulation to individual streets, lots or buildings; …
This would provide for connections to infrastructure
mains.
6.0 LIMITED EXEMPTIONS
General:
Relationship between Limited
Exemptions and exemptions
from certain codes.
HCC
The issue of Limited Exemptions and the application of
exemptions under codes need to be reviewed. For example
construction of a garden shed is not exempt under 6.1 on a
heritage-listed place. If a garden shed were exempt under the
Heritage Code it would still not be exempt under the Scheme.
There needs to be a provision that allows limited exemptions to
be exempt under the scheme if exempt under the relevant
69
Agree.
This is a structural deficiency of the State Template
that needs to be addressed.
•
•
An exemption from a code is an exemption just
from that code.
The Limited Exemptions provide for some types
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
code. This could be resolved by breaking up the clause into
two - (a) and (b) with (a) being for a place not listed in a
heritage code or located in a Heritage Precinct and (b) where it
is, but is exempt by that Code. The focus could then be on
improving the Regional Heritage Code and its exemptions.
Regional Project Response
•
•
•
•
of development to be exempt from the whole
scheme, in some circumstances.
Commonly, a circumstance that prevents a type
of development from being exempt from the
whole scheme is if it is subject to a certain code,
such as the Heritage Code.
If the heritage code says that particular type of
development is exempt, then it is exempt – but
just from the heritage code.
It is still not exempt from all the other provisions
of the scheme.
Therefore, the comment appears to be valid, and
the Limited Exemptions need to clarify that
something not exempt because of it being
covered by a code, is in fact exempt from the
whole scheme if that code exempts it from that
code.
The Regional Model’s General Exemptions currently
addresses this problem with respect to signs. Clause
5.10 provides that a sign exempted within the signs
code is in fact exempt from the whole scheme.
Similar General or Limited Exemptions will need to be
provided for all similar matters. Suggested changes to
the exemptions have been drafted for consideration. It
is recommended that the TPC consider this issue.
General
P25 & P56
Concerns expressed with a number of limited exemptions.
Limited exemptions
These clauses are part of the State Template and
cannot be amended by the STRPP.
The comments will be passed on to the TPC.
70
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
Waterways buffer area widths:
From
STRPP
Inconsistency between the
Limited Exemptions in the
State Template and the Water
Quality Protection Areas in the
Regional Model as required by
the STRLUS.
Comment or Suggestion
The Region Model Scheme provisions (Waterways and
Coastal Protection Code) match the widths of Water Quality
Protection Areas with the widths in the Forest Practices Code.
This alignment is stipulated in the STRLUS (WR 1.3). This
means that there will be variable widths according to the size
of the waterway: e.g. 10, 20, 30 and 40 metres according to
the 'class' of the stream.
However, the State Planning Scheme Template assumes that
all watercourse buffers will be 30 metres wide regardless of the
size of the stream, by virtue of the wording of the Limited
Exemptions, many of which provide that: "xxxx is exempt,
except if within 30 metres of a watercourse". The State
Template thereby presumes that within 30 metres of any
watercourse the scheme will have controls over development
specific to the issue of being in proximity to the watercourse.
To overcome this mismatch, either the State Template or the
STRLUS would have to be amended.
To accord with the existing apparent State policy position that
can be deduced from the State’s Forestry System, the State
Template should change, and the matching variable
streamside buffer distances should be retained in the Regional
Strategy and the Regional Model Scheme provisions.
6.2.1 and 6.2.2
State Exemption.
Provision and Upgrade of
Linear and Minor Utilities and
Infrastructure.
Hydro
The combination of these clauses attempts to limit the existing
exemptions of utility organisations from the requirements of
under LUPA Act for permits for particular works required for the
installation, maintenance and repair of infrastructure including
but not limited too:
71
Regional Project Response
Proposed approach:
It is assumed that the State Template will not be
amended on this matter in time for the draft interim
schemes to be submitted to the Minister.
The inconsistency will likely have to stay for an initial
period of time when the schemes are operational.
The practical effect of this is that certain kinds of
otherwise exempt development will not be exempt if
within 30 metres of a watercourse. If the watercourse
is one of the smaller classes it will have only a 10
metre or 20 metre wide Watercourse Protection Area
in which the Waterways and Coastal Protection Code
will provide rules specific to being in proximity of a
waterway.
Therefore, any development within 30 metres will need
to be subject to a development application, but if
outside a Watercourse Protection Area there will be no
specific relevant provisions in the scheme.
Whilst clearly undesirable, this is considered a
relatively minor deficiency and something that ‘can be
lived with’ until the State Template can be amended.
TPC to consider.
Explanation:
It is not possible for a planning scheme to undo an
exemption provided by legislation.
Planning schemes are subordinate to legislation.
As stated above, the planning schemes should include
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
•
•
•
•
Water and Sewerage Industry Act 2008,
Electricity Supply Industry Act 1995,
Irrigation Clauses Act 1973,
Australian Postal Corporation Act 1989.
Regional Project Response
non-statutory footnotes that alert users to the fact that
certain works and development are exempt from
planning schemes by higher-order legislation.
In addition SS20(3)(b) specifies that nothing in a planning
scheme is to prevent the use of any building, which was
erected before the coming into operation for any purpose,
which it was lawfully being used immediately before that
coming into operation, or the maintenance or repair of such a
building.
6.2.1 and 6.2.2
Hydro
State Exemption.
Provision and Upgrade of
Linear and Minor Utilities and
Infrastructure.
6.2
State Exemption.
Provision and Upgrade of
Linear and Minor Utilities and
Infrastructure.
The nature of this qualification only comprehends the
ownership of utility infrastructure by public entities only.
However, there are a number of private irrigation schemes and
minor utility providers that have operated in Tasmania.
This clause is part of the State Template and cannot
be amended by the STRPP.
The comments will be passed on to the TPC.
Similarly, the recent experience of other states would suggest
that the privatisation of public utility infrastructure could happen
in the near future.
HCC
These limited exemptions will unnecessarily catch a significant
amount of routine work undertaken by councils. The
requirement for a permit application for minor infrastructure
such as the replacement of playground equipment, minor park
furniture such as seating, rubbish bins and bicycle racks etc)
within a heritage area or within 30m of a waterway, is of
minimal planning merit yet will unnecessarily fetter service.
72
Agree – generally:
Note that this section applies to the provision and
upgrade of infrastructure. General Exemption 5.4
allows for maintenance and repair of existing
infrastructure regardless of any code.
However, the concern is relevant with respect to new
infrastructure and upgrade of existing infrastructure.
STRPP to convey this legitimate concern to the TPC,
which has jurisdiction over modifications to State
Template provisions.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
In lieu of the State changing the State Template, the
Region should attempt to ensure the various relevant
codes provide the necessary exemptions.
6.2
HCC
Specifically listed places such as St David’s Park and Franklin
Sq should be subject to control but parks that are in Heritage
Precincts are not so critical. See comments in 5.4.
Additional exemptions are proposed in the Heritage
Code and related amendments to sections 5 and 6 of
the template will be suggested to the TPC for
consideration.
Hydro
The term ‘minor upgrades’ is unable to be adequately
quantified. Such qualitative standards should not be utilised in
determining development standards or exemptions, as it is
likely to result in conflict.
This clause is part of the State Template and cannot
be amended by the STRPP.
State Exemption.
Provision and Upgrade of
Linear and Minor Utilities and
Infrastructure.
Heritage Places and Precincts
6.2.4
State Exemption.
Provision and Upgrade of
Linear and Minor Utilities and
Infrastructure.
As an example and exemption for ‘minor upgrades’ that
includes ‘minor widening’ or ‘narrowing’ of railway lines may be
contrary to subsection 19(2) of the Rail Infrastructure Act 2007
which requires that rail works that are not for an emergency or
routine railway works to maintain (including repair, modify and
upgrade) the rail network are taken to be developments that
are discretionary development.
The comments will be passed on to the TPC.
Note that planning scheme provisions can’t be
‘contrary’ to higher-order legislation. To the extent of
any inconsistency, the higher-order legislation simply
overrides planning scheme provisions.
As stated above, the planning schemes should include
non-statutory footnotes that alert users to the fact that
certain works and development are exempt from
planning schemes by higher-order legislation.
As such it would be recommended that either exemptions such
as these be harmonised with the existing exemptions or
removed to avoid confusion.
6.2.4
State Exemption.
DIER
A welcome inclusion is the exemption for minor upgrades of
the State road network under 6.2.4.
Provision and Upgrade of
73
Noted
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Councils need exemptions from this provision to discharge
their obligations under the Drains Act including provision of
new and upgraded stormwater services. It is difficult to assess
the full extent of impact of this section on Council infrastructure
service providers, as two relevant codes have not yet been
drafted. However, the heritage precinct provision within the
Heritage code in particular seems unworkable. Include a
supplementary provision about repair provided the same
materials are used where the work involves
infrastructure/elements listed in a heritage code not just
infrastructure anywhere in any heritage precinct. See
comments on 5.4
Note that this section applies to provision and upgrade
of infrastructure. General Exemption 5.4 allows
for maintenance and repair of existing infrastructure
regardless of heritage listings.
Linear and Minor Utilities and
Infrastructure.
6.2
HCC
State Exemption.
Provision and Upgrade of
Linear and Minor Utilities and
Infrastructure.
Need for Council exemptions
re: duties under the Drains
Act.
However, the concern is relevant with respect to new
infrastructure and upgrade of existing infrastructure.
Legal advice may be needed regarding whether the
responsibilities and powers conferred on Councils
under the Drains Act 1954 over-ride LUPAA and its
subordinate planning schemes. This is a statewide
matter and should be investigated by the TPC and the
SG. (The mooted new Drains Act may clarify this.)
STRPP to convey this to the TPC, which has
jurisdiction over modifications to State Template
provisions, if needed.
6.3.1 & 6.3.2
State Exemption:
Vegetation, planting, clearing,
modification - except at a
heritage place or precinct.
HT & P91
Whilst it is acknowledged that there is no opportunity at this
stage to comment on the statewide provisions, attention should
also be drawn to the limited exemptions under 6.0. In particular
provisions such as 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 (regarding vegetation
planting, clearing or modification) are potentially overly
onerous on owners of heritage places.
It is hoped that this can be conveyed by the STCA as part of
the overall process.
74
Agree.
STRPP to convey this to the TPC, which has
jurisdiction over modifications to State Template
provisions.
Exemptions within the region’s Heritage Code,
however, need to ensure vegetation planting, clearing
or modification at heritage places is not subject to an
unreasonable degree of regulation.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
6.3.1 & 6.3.2
From
HCC
Comment or Suggestion
Landscaping and gardening should be a general exemption.
State Exemption:
Agree.
STRPP to convey this to the TPC, which has
jurisdiction over modifications to State Template
provisions.
Vegetation, planting, clearing,
modification - except at a
heritage place or precinct.
6.3.1 (g):
Regional Project Response
CHC
State Exemption:
Certain use or development
not exempt if within 30 m of a
watercourse.
The distance specified should be consistent with what is used
under the Forest Practise Code, which is 10m for a drainage
line.
Agree. Streamside buffers in the Template exemptions
should match with the Forest Practices Code, (refer
comments above).
STRPP to convey this to the TPC, which has
jurisdiction over modifications to State Template
provisions.
Note that not all streams are 10 m under the Forest
Practices Code, as it is larger for larger class
waterways – up to 40 m for large rivers.
6.3.1 (g):
State Exemption:
Certain use or development
not exempt if within 30 m of a
watercourse.
DIER
It is noted that part 6.3 allows partial exemption for vegetation
clearance associated with minor road upgrades; however
6.3.1(g) requires a planning permit for the clearing of land
located within 30m of a wetland or watercourse. DIER is
concerned for the implications this may have in undertaking
vegetation management within the road reservation under the
maintenance program.
Agree:
Routine vegetation management within the road
reservation under the DIER maintenance program
should be exempt even if within 30 m of a watercourse.
This should be a General Exemption.
STRPP to convey this to the TPC, which has
jurisdiction over modifications to State Template
provisions.
The exemptions within the region’s Biodiversity Code,
however, need to ensure vegetation planting, clearing
or modification for routine maintenance purposes along
roadsides is not subject to an unreasonable degree of
75
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
regulation.
6.3.1 (a) and (g):
State Exemption:
Certain use or development
not exempt if within a heritage
area or within 30 m of a
watercourse.
HCC
Similar to cl.6.3, this clause ostensibly requires a permit
application for any vegetation management works in a park,
reserve or sporting field that is within 30m of waterway or in a
heritage area. To require a permit application for this work by
a council is unnecessary.
Given the extent of the proposed heritage areas in Hobart,
proximity to watercourses of our reserves and the general
cultural landscape listing applied to the Queens Domain, this
will create an unrealistic requirement for planning approval that
simply will not, and cannot, be implemented.
If the intent for this limited exemption was not to capture such
routine works, the clause requires correction. It would simply
be impossible to prepare, submit and assess permit
applications for the breadth of everyday works that councils
undertake that would fall within the scope of this proposed
clause.
Similarly, to not exempt fire hazard works for which an
abatement notice has been issued is antithetical to the purpose
of such notices (which is to quickly remove fire hazards as
such notices have their own timeframes). To require a permit
application for these works in any circumstances is
inconsistent with those Acts. (Albeit cl5.7 may prevail over this
requirement, as may the provisions of the Fire Services Act).
Few of Council's fuel reduction burns are endorsed by the TFS
or Parks. Therefore, Council's own fuel reduction works would
require a permit application. Again, this is impractical given the
timing constraints around fuel reduction burns, and
76
Agree - generally:
Note that this section applies to the provision and
upgrade of infrastructure. General Exemption 5.4
allows for maintenance and repair of existing
infrastructure regardless of any code.
However, the concern is relevant with respect to new
infrastructure and upgrade of existing infrastructure.
STRPP to convey this to the TPC, which has
jurisdiction over modifications to State Template
provisions, if needed.
In lieu of the State changing the State Template, the
Region should attempt to ensure the various relevant
codes provide the necessary exemptions.
Minimum necessary bushfire hazard management
around existing use and development should be
exempt from all aspects of planning schemes, as
human life is a value above all values that planning
schemes may seek to recognise and protect.
Additional exemptions are proposed in the Heritage
Code and related amendments to sections 5 and 6 of
the template will be suggested to the TPC for
consideration.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
unnecessary given the expertise of those planning and
conducting such burns.
Again, it is simply unrealistic to require a permit application for
works necessary for immediate public safety. There seems to
be some inconsistency between cl6.3(i) and the Emergency
Works exemption at cl5.7.
The generality of this exemption needs to be 'reinstated' the
majority of these works should not require a permit application.
If the vegetation or trees are of cultural significance, they
themselves should be listed.
Clause 6.3.1 should provide for the vegetation clearing
exemption to not apply in specified character areas where it is
desired to protect identified streetscape and townscape values
not covered by a code that regulates impacts on scenic or
landscape values.
6.3.2 (f) and (j)
State Exemption:
Certain use or development
not exempt if within 1 m of a
boundary fence
CHC
The distances specified for clearance from fence lines, power
lines, etc. is unreasonable, (1 m).
These distances are specified throughout the whole document
and Council believes they need to be increased. Council
believes the width for a boundary fence should be increased to
10 m as the current stipulation is not sufficient to maintain the
fence line and boundary fence lines are also used for fire
access and would not be wide enough for fire fighting vehicles.
Agree – mostly:
The distance able to be cleared for erecting /
maintaining a fence should be larger than 1m.
The TRG meeting of 21 August 2013 determined that 4
m in rural zones, (not 10 m as suggested by CHC), is
appropriate. In urban zones however, the distance
should be 2 m. The 1 m in the State Template is
clearly too small - even for urban zones.
10 m in rural areas may be appropriate as part of
bushfire hazard management purposes, but that is a
separate issue.
Note that the Boundary Fences Act states that 2 m
77
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
should be cleared along boundary fence lines.
6.3.2 (f) and (j)
CHC
State Exemption:
The distances specified for clearance from fence lines, power
lines etc is unreasonable, (1 m)
The distances currently used by Aurora and Transend should
be implemented for power lines.
Certain use or development
not exempt if within 1 m of
certain kinds of infrastructure.
Agree:
In regard to power lines, Aurora has exemptions from
planning schemes to maintain its power lines. However
the concern is relevant to private power lines. STRPP
agrees with the principle that exemptions to facilitate
the maintenance of private power line safety should
match those afforded the Aurora. The development of
private powerlines should not be exempt, however.
STRPP to convey this to the TPC, which has
jurisdiction over modifications to State Template
provisions.
The regional model scheme is to provide the following
General Exemption:
The clearing or lopping of trees, branches or other
vegetation to the extent necessary for the
protection of existing public and private electricity
infrastructure.
6.3.2 (j)
State Exemption:
Certain use or development
not exempt if within 1 m of a
boundary fence.
Fire breaks.
SMC
It would seem in accordance with the ‘Limited Exemptions’ that
land owners have the ability to clear the boundary fences of
their property without the inhibition of the planning scheme
where such clearance of vegetation has been qualified by the:
o
TasFire Service; or
o
in accordance with an approved ‘Hazard Management
Plan’; or
o
where in accordance with the Fire Service Act 1979; or
Agree – mostly:
The distance able to be cleared for erecting /
maintaining a fence should be larger than 1m.
The TRG meeting of 21 August 2013 determined that 4
m in rural zones, (not 5 m as suggested by SMC), is
appropriate. In urban zones however, the distance
should be 2 m. The 1 m in the State Template is
clearly too small - even for urban zones.
Larger clearance around boundaries in rural areas may
78
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
o
within 1m of the fence.
For landowners that may seek to clear a boundary fence or
create a firebreak beyond 1m from the boundary (and outside
of the specified ‘Limited exemptions’), there appears some
ambiguity of whether such works necessitate the lodgement of
a Development Application. This seems further complicated as
‘vegetation clearance/removal’ is not a defined
use/development in the state template.
The Southern Midlands Council would like to see also that
landowners are not inhibited by planning schemes to clear the
boundaries of their properties to reduce bushfire hazards. It is
thought a suitable distance to clear vegetation from a boundary
should be up to 5m to allow room for machinery and to
consider the natural obstacles that may prevent machinery
from having access to the property boundary such as the
terrain, geological features or large trees.
Recommendation:
Although it is acknowledged that the State Government is
currently working on a ‘State vegetation fire management
policy’ in accordance with the Fire Services Act 1979 that
should assist in giving direction to Councils and landowners
about what may require a planning permit to remove
vegetation; it is thought necessary for the interim that the
Regional Project or Tasmanian Planning Commission provide
a policy direction to accompany the proposed planning scheme
regarding the interpretation of vegetation removal for the
purpose of bushfire protection measures. Alternatively the
regional project could specifically include ‘vegetation
79
Regional Project Response
be appropriate as part of bushfire hazard management
purposes, but that is a separate issue.
Note that the Boundary Fences Act states that 2 m
should be cleared along boundary fence lines.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
clearance’ as a use/development definition.
6.3.2 (j)
SMC
State Exemption:
Certain use or development
not exempt if within 1 m of a
boundary fence.
Construction and maintenance
of boundary fences.
6.4:
It is thought a suitable distance to clear vegetation from a
boundary should be up to 5m to allow room for machinery and
to consider the natural obstacles that may prevent machinery
from having access to the property boundary such as the
terrain, geological features or large trees.
Also the scheme shall recognise the feasibility of landowners
to be able to clear the property boundary where such works
may be inhibited by natural obstacles or where such works
may require machinery and access; note also that machinery
may be more cost effective for large landholders and that
sufficient room to use such machinery may be necessary.
Agree:
The distance able to be cleared for erecting /
maintaining a fence should be larger than 1m.
The TRG meeting of 21 August 2013 determined that 4
m in rural zones, (not 10 m as suggested by CHC), is
appropriate. In urban zones however, the distance
should be 2 m. The 1 m in the State Template is
clearly too small - even for urban zones.
10 m in rural areas may be appropriate as part of
bushfire hazard management purposes, but that is a
separate issue.
Note that the Boundary Fences Act states that 2 m
should be cleared along boundary fence lines.
CHC
Suggest that this section be re-worded to make it clear what is
exempt and what is not. Council found it confusing.
Unclear which parts are confusing.
CHC
The size of outbuildings listed in 6.5.2 and 6.6.2 is
contradictive. It is suggested that 6.6.2 only be applicable in
the Rural Living Zone.
Explanation:
State Exemption:
Fences
6.5.2:
(State exemption).
Buildings and Works in the
Rural Resource Zone or
Significant Agricultural Zone
6.5.2 deals with agricultural buildings, (barns,
haysheds, stables, etc).
6.6.2 deals with residential outbuildings, (garages,
carports, etc. Without this exemption, garages and
carports associated with an existing dwelling in the
Rural Resource or Significant Agricultural Zone would
be discretionary.
verses
6.6.2:
(Regional exemption).
80
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Outbuildings in Rural Living,
Rural Resource and
Significant Agriculture Zones
6.6.1:
TPC
Regional Exemption:
Outbuildings in Rural Living,
Rural Resource and
Significant Agriculture Zones
The wording of this provision is not clear, and the provisions
give precedent to residential uses over agricultural uses in the
exemption of a residential outbuilding. The exemption also
allows for the outbuilding to be closer to boundaries than the
standards within the zone do. This exemption needs to be
reconsidered.
Agree – partly.
The exemption needs to be re-written to ensure that residential
use is not given priority over agricultural uses bearing in mind
the PAL Policy and STRLUS. How the exemptions work with
the standards within the Rural Living, Rural Resource and
Significant Agriculture Zones must be reconsidered to avoid
contradictions.
New garages / carports with a total gross floor area of
2
up to 108 m would take up a very small area in the
context of rural properties, and the extent of ‘precedent
of residential use over agricultural use’ is considered
insignificant.
The intention is to provide an exemption for residential
outbuildings associated with an existing dwelling in
rural areas. This is considered reasonable and would
not significantly impact on the use of the land generally
for intensive agricultural uses.
It is unreasonable to put farmers through discretionary
application processes to build a garage next to their
house. The exemptions for minor outbuildings under
6.1 are unreasonably restrictive in the rural context.
Nevertheless, the provision could be amended to
provide further restrictions:
•
•
•
6.6.1:
P61
How can council permit residential use dwellings on the zones
81
Setbacks must comply with the relevant zone
setback acceptable solutions.
The outbuilding must be associated with an
existing dwelling.
The outbuilding must be within the farm
homestead precinct (or similar phrasing).
Explanation:
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Regional Exemption:
Comment or Suggestion
listed above? We will have small dwellings popping up
everywhere on these zones without any planning controls.
Outbuildings in Rural Living,
Rural Resource and
Significant Agriculture Zones
Regional Project Response
The exemption provides for residential outbuildings
associated with an existing dwelling in rural areas. This
means garages, carports and sheds used for domestic
storage purpoes.
The exemption does not apply to new dwellings.
6.8.1 (c) & 6.8.4 (c):
TPC
Renewable Energy Provisions
Clause 6.8.4 (c) refers to outbuildings but it is actually for
ground based solar panels.
Agree.
Change.
Clause 6.8.4 (c) must refer to structures not outbuildings
6.8.1
DPIPWE
Renewable Energy Provisions
There are no provisions controlling the erection of a wind
turbine in or adjacent to a wetland. Turbines have the capacity
to cause significant harm to migratory bird species that may
use wetlands and therefore consideration should be given to
including wetlands under 6.8.1.
Under subclause (d) wind turbines are not exempt in
an area that is subject to a code that is part of this
planning scheme and which expressly regulates
impacts on biodiversity values. Important wetlands will
be covered by the Biodiversity Code.
No change recommended specifically.
However, this exemption and the Wind and Solar
Energy Code to be reviewed generally.
6.8.1
Renewable Energy Provisions
6.9.1
Change Between Permitted
Uses
P87
6.8 and 6.9 Renewable Energy and Change Between
Permitted Uses. Both these section should require an EIS. An
EIS should specifically include any need for exclusion
measures and protection against loss of habitat for flora and
fauna on the endangered species lists. If an EIS demonstrates
any issue a permit should be required. An example would be
any possibility of danger to the Wedge Tailed Eagle, Swift
Parrot etc. due to loss of habitat or foraging areas. The danger
to Eagles of wind generators across Tasmania is already well
documented.
82
Under subclause (d) wind turbines are not exempt an
area that is subject to a code that is part of this
planning scheme and which expressly regulates
impacts on biodiversity values.
The Biodiversity Code would generally cover
threatened species habitat.
Under 6.9 changes between permitted uses are only
exempt if there is no associated development.
No change recommended.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
6.9.1 (c):
From
TPC
Change between permitted
uses.
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Clause 6.2 of Planning Directive 1 requires exemptions to be
self-contained and not rely on any standards elsewhere in the
scheme.
This is considered a worthwhile concept to include
within planning schemes, as it would eliminate a class
of unnecessary development applications.
Clause 6.9.1(c) requires an assessment against the use
standards. The scope of the exemption also appears broader
than intended by the heading in that it could apply to any
permitted use, not just a change between permitted uses. This
appears to overlap with the ‘no permit required’ mechanism in
the Template.
It would appear difficult to achieve, however, without
specifying that the new use cannot trigger
Performance Criteria. Given that Acceptable Solutions
are intended to be clear and simple, the process of
determining whether a proposed use complies with
them or must seek to satisfy a Performance Criteria
should be straightforward. Note that if not complying
with acceptable solutions, there is no need to
undertake any assessment under the performance
criteria in order to make the decision that the proposal
is not exempt.
Review the scope of the exemption to avoid overlapping with
the ‘no permit required’ mechanism under the Template. The
exemption must also be self-contained and not rely on any
standards in the scheme.
Agree to remove this from the exemptions. Suggest
that this be put in the no permit required section of
each of the specified zones use table subject to
qualifications.
6.9.1 (c):
Change between permitted
uses.
TasWater
Under some scenarios there may be a change in permitted
uses on a site that conforms to this provision and increases or
changes the load on the sewerage system, usually trade waste
related activities. Similar scenario for boundary backflow
protection where the activity dictates. TasWater would lose the
opportunity to provide conditions/advice to customers prior to
them undertaking some works. Without a permit requirement
and therefore a referral to TasWater the corporation would not
be aware of this change.
Businesses could be at increased financial risk where they
have completed works and not been advised of sewage pre-
83
Not Agree, this is a building / plumbing permit issue.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
treatment requirements (additional cost and disruption to install
facilities after the fact) thus increasing their chances of being
non-compliant and being charged as such by TasWater when
found. Common complaint in this case is that the Water Corp
should have advised me earlier and we are perceived as the
problem when actually it was out of our hands.
Businesses could commence operating without an approval
and remain unconsented for discharge of trade waste to sewer
for a significant period before being randomly identified by
TasWater thus having a market advantage over competitors,
while the majority of trade waste customers are signed up to
trade waste agreements/consents.
In some of these cases we may be able to look at other ways
of triggering notification of required trade waste requirements.
7.0 PLANNING SCHEME OPERATION
No comments were received
in relation to this section
8.0 ASSESSMENT OF AN APPLICATION FOR USE OR DEVELOPMENT
8.1
DPIPWE
Application Requirements
Application for a development should include in the vegetation
types any weed species declared under the Weed
Management Act 1999.
Noted.
This clause is part of the State Template.
The comment will be passed on to the TPC, which has
jurisdiction over changes to the State Template.
8.1
Application Requirements
TasWater
This section was reviewed with consideration of the past 4
years of operation, specifically the receipt and assessment of
planning applications via the Councils.
The quality of information submitted by proponents on water
84
Noted.
This clause is part of the State Template.
The comment will be passed on to the TPC, which has
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
8.1
Application Requirements
Subdivision application
requirements need to be
specifically stated.
From
HCC
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
and sewerage issues is highly variable and it would be difficult
to specify the full requirements through the planning scheme
for all possible development types.
Issues would include: connection points and mains extensions,
location of existing and proposed water and sewerage
infrastructure, capacity assessment/modelling, attenuation
zones, trade waste issues etc. The alternative is to detail
TasWater application requirements in a separate document
that sits outside of the planning schemes, in effect a planning
application guide, which is somehow brought up through these
provisions. This could for example be done as a footnote in the
scheme.
jurisdiction over changes to the State Template.
The drafting standard of subdivision applications has dropped
alarmingly since 1993 demonstrating the need for the
reintroduction of regulatory measures.
The planning scheme should outline the minimum drafting
requirements for a “plan of subdivision” in Part B clause 8.1,
similar to the provisions in section 464 of the Local
Government Act 1962.
A “plan of subdivision” must be to scale, show a North point,
measurements, areas, contours, buildings, existing services
and an indication of the proposed new service connections...
etc.
In Clause 8.1.3(a)(ii) subdivision application should also
include lot areas, new title boundaries to be clearly
differentiated from existing (new shown as heavy outline with
existing lighter outline), location of roads, streets and ways,
both public and private, indicating whether they are existing or
proposed, location of any easements, building envelopes,
restrictive covenants or other encumbrance on the land
indicating whether they are existing or proposed, location of
telephone or electric power lines, location of existing Council
Noted.
85
It is noted, however, that the issues raised are
generally dealt with through separate, but associated,
legislation and processes under which TasWater
operates. Therefore, the suggestion for a footnote (non
statutory) is the preferred solution.
This clause is part of the State Template.
The comment will be passed on to the TPC, which has
jurisdiction over changes to the State Template.
The STRPP preference is for Section 8.1 to contain a
specific subsection dealing with subdivision
applications.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
and Taswater reticulated services, shared drains and indicative
proposed service connections to each lot, location of adjoining
land in the same ownership, septic tank investigations when
appropriate, a contaminated site assessment when
appropriate, a Building Surveyors report when appropriate a
traffic impact assessment when appropriate, provide evidence
on whether the lots, and in particular the proposed building
sites, can be adequately fire protected from TasWater’s mains,
bushfire management plan when appropriate, a geotechnical
report when appropriate, the predicted/projected 1:100 year
maximum sea level contour for the year 2100 when
appropriate & other particulars, if any, as may be required to
demonstrate compliance with any part of the planning scheme
or Part 3 of LGBMP
Clause 8.1.2 requires amending to ensure that information
must be provided with a subdivision application to demonstrate
compliance with LGBMP.
Clause 8.1.3(a) (iii) State Datum and arbitrary datum levels
should be permitted with discretion. In any event a level datum
reference point should be mandatory.
Clause 8.1.3(a) (vii) the location and capacity of any proposed
services or easements on the site or connected to the site
must be included as a mandatory requirement. A “plan of
subdivision” must be mandatory for subdivisions and boundary
adjustments. Refer to section 80 LGBMP.
Clause 8.1.3(a) (viii) Proposed pedestrian and vehicle access
to the site must be included as a mandatory requirement.
Clause 8.1.3(a) (xii) existing roads, driveways, car parking
areas and footpaths within the site should be required.
This is a whole set of issues relating to complementarily with
LGBMP.
One option may well be duplicating its provisions in Schemes
86
Regional Project Response
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
but there may be simpler ones.
The approach in the template is for subdivision to be treated as
one type of development requiring purposes and standards, so
it may simply be that there is a requirement for applications to
be in a form required by LGBMP or any successor legislation.
The issue of s84 and 85 of LGBMP in particular and how they
can be translated and updated generally in planning schemes
remains.
8.2
IG4
Use Class Table
8.2
HCC
Manufacturing and processing lists cement works as an
example. If this is actually referring to a concrete batch plant
the descriptor should be clarified.
The template headings need to be added to this table.
Use Class Table
8.2
Noted.
HCC
Regional defined uses in 4.1.3 need to be added to the last
column in Table 8.2.
The last column in Table 8.2 is to be deleted from the
State Template. The automatic highlighting of defined
terms by the CMS has made it redundant.
GCC
Community meeting and entertainment: the definition for
this use class uses the term 'church', suggest that the term
'church' be replaced with 'place of worship'. To eliminate
potential for discussion in relation to mosques etc. Both terms
are used within the ordinance but, in accordance with drafting
rule 3.2.4.4, wording must be identical where the same
meaning is meant.
If it is agreed that this change be made that in addition the
entire ordinance should be checked and wherever the term
'church' is used, it should be replaced with 'place of worship'.
Noted.
Educational and occasional care
Noted.
Use Class definitions
8.2
This is a State Template provision. STRPP to refer to
the TPC.
This is a State Template / CMS issue. STRPP to refer
to the TPC.
Use Class Table
8.2
Noted.
HCC
87
This is a State Template provision. STRPP to refer to
the TPC.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Use Class definitions
Template Use Class definition refers to ‘day respite facility’.
(Raised previously by HCC)
Template definition in 4.1 refers to ‘day respite centre’.
This is a State Template provision. STRPP to refer to
the TPC.
Resource development
Noted.
Use Class definitions
Template Use Class definition refers to ‘crop production.
(Raised previously by HCC)
Template definition in 4.1 refers to ‘crop raising.
This is a State Template provision. STRPP to refer to
the TPC.
Residential and Visitor Accommodation:
Noted.
Hostel is used in both Residential and Visitor Accommodation.
Need to clarify Residential is permanent place of residence as
opposed to short term for visitor accommodation
This is a State Template provision. STRPP to refer to
the TPC.
Bulky Goods:
Noted.
It is submitted that the definition under PD1 should be revised
to ensure the full gamut of bulky goods retailing is clearly
contained within it including the loading and unloading
requirements as this is an important aspect of bulky goods
retailing.
This is a State Template provision. STRPP to refer to
the TPC.
“In determining an application for any permit the planning
authority must not take into consideration matters referred to in
clauses 2.0 and 3.0 of the planning scheme”.
What is the purpose of this provision?
Answer:
8.2
8.2
HCC
HCC
Use Class definitions
8.2
IG3
Use Class definitions
8.10
TasWater
Determining Applications
Strategy and objectives are non-operational.
This is to provide more certainty in planning schemes.
Note that this is a State Template provision.
8.10.1
HCC
Determining Applications
Clause 8.10.1 needs a part (c) clause requiring subdivisions to
comply with Part 3 LGBMP as per comment above.
Subdivision – LGBMP
8.11.2
Conditions and Restrictions on
HCC
Clause 8.11.2 - an additional clause may be required to ensure
conditions may include requirements to the satisfaction of an
88
Agreed – in principle:
This is considered elsewhere in this report, wherein
new regional provisions are proposed in Part 9.
Noted.
New regional provisions are proposed in Part 9 to
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
a Permit.
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
appropriately delegated Council officers (i.e.) Council’s
delegated Engineer under S86 LGBMP.
ensure the link with the requirements of LGBMP. This
reference will also provide clear head power for
Councils to apply any conditions necessary to comply
with the requirements of LGBMP.
This clause is essentially useless. It is impossible to change
from one 'non-conforming use' to a new 'non-conforming use',
given the definition of non-conforming uses. A use is only
‘non-conforming’ if prohibited by the scheme when it comes
into operation.
This clause needs to be re-written or many existing 'nonconforming uses' that cannot be adapted to a permitted or
discretionary use will be forced to remain vacant. The clause
needs to refer to changes to a 'prohibited' use.
There should also be scope within this clause for existing uses
that are discretionary under the scheme to move to prohibited
uses as long as a, b and c are satisfied. Use tables in the
zones cannot account for every conceivable circumstance, and
a very low impact operation that may technically fit into a
prohibited use class could well have less impact on the
amenity of a locality than the existing use.
Noted.
9.1.1(c):
The word substantially is likely to cause issues if the clause is
used to justify a change.
Noted.
This provision needs to make reference to LG(BMP) and
address servicing requirements, as per comment above.
The exemption should not result in preventing physical access
to previously accessible ‘public’ infrastructure including
Note that this is not an exemption.
9.0 SPECIAL PROVISIONS
9.1.1
HCC
Changes to an Existing Nonconforming Use
9.1.1
TasWater
Changes to an Existing Nonconforming Use
9.2:
Adjustment of a Boundary
HCC
89
STRPP to pass comment on to TPC.
This is a State Template provision. STRPP to refer to
the TPC.
A permit must still be granted and conditions and/or
restrictions may be applied.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
9.2:
From
P61
Adjustment of a Boundary
9.2:
P75
Adjustment of a Boundary
9.2:
P89
Adjustment of a Boundary
9.4:
Change of Use of a Heritage
HT
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
sewerage and stormwater mains . This is one of what should
be an increasingly utilised approach that of ‘sign-off’ on the
basis of such a parameter by the relevant authority as a
prerequisite for a boundary adjustment before it is ‘submitted’
for planning approval. Again, this might be part of the overall
approach where subdivision is involved i.e. to demonstrate
compliance with LGBMP …if indeed that currently addresses
this adequately. Larger issues also occasionally arise and
Council must be able to address these.
In addition to (a)-(e) the scheme needs an additional sub
clause (f) that the application is not in contravention of Part 3
LGBMP. This will ensure that sub minimum lots are not
automatically approved and permit a rational assessment of
the impact on the proposal on existing service connections.
STRPP is not convinced the clause needs a significant
expansion.
Under (b) what does minor change mean? It is too subjective.
Should (e) state: no lot boundary that also forms a zoning
boundary will be changed.
This is a State Template provision.
This provision is very limited, suggest incorporate wording from
26.5.2 A2 boundary adjustment in the Rural Resource Zone.
This (clause 9.2) is a State Template provision.
I submit the new planning schemes should provide for
assessment of boundary adjustments as a discretionary permit
on the full principles of sustainable development and not limit
best land use outcomes by some single arbitrary criteria of size
of the change of the area effected by the boundary adjustment.
Noted.
Supportive of 9.4.1, 9.4.2 and 9.4.3 as it is agreed that it is
crucial to the survival of heritage places that they can be used;
therefore making it easier for uses that would otherwise be
90
In line with other comments made by HCC and
supported by the STRPP, however, a linkage to
compliance with the provisions of LGBMP would
appear appropriate.
However, note S.115 of LGBMP Act (exemption). Any
linkage to LGBMP would need to ensure the ability of
Councils to utilise S.115 is not removed.
STRPP to pass comment on to TPC.
The current wording is considered appropriate.
If a boundary adjustment does not meet the
requirements of 9.2 it will be assessed as a subdivision
under the relevant zone provisions. No change
recommended.
This is a State Template provision. STRPP to refer to
the TPC.
Support noted.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
HCC
Change of Use of a Heritage
Place
9.4:
HCC
Change of Use of a Heritage
Place
9.4:
Change of Use of a Heritage
Place
Regional Project Response
prohibited to occur is a positive step.
Place
9.4:
Comment or Suggestion
GCC
The word local in this clause and others where it is used needs
to be optional if not used in the Heritage Code
Agree.
Delete all references to 'historic' (see comments on Heritage
Code).
Not agree.
In line with drafting guidelines, the local heritage code in the
Glenorchy Scheme now does not list THR listed sites and
therefore it does not show THR listed sites on an overlay. This
is of concern, given that those sites do need a works permit
and given that this clause 9.4 applies to those sites, both the
developer and council planning officers should have an easy
way of knowing which sites are listed by the THC. Suggest that
the THC be required to map their listed sites and that that
information be displayed on the List as part of planning
scheme info and that the Enquire and Assess modules
interrogate it in their searches. We have recently been advised
by the THC that they would like us to dual list their properties,
to ensure that if and when they delist properties, they will
remain protected. This is of concern to us, since their listing
relies on addresses or title references that are frequently
incorrect. Furthermore, we have now mapped the spatial
extent of our local listings and would only want to list THC sites
if they are mapped as well. The THC should be required to
provide us with this data.
Similar issues apply to some codes that rely on description for
their application and where mapping may be available, but
should stay outside of the planning scheme, for example
Noted.
91
Provide for the word ‘local’ to be omitted.
It is intended that terminology in the code accord with
Tasmania’s heritage legislation, the Historic Cultural
Heritage Act 1995.
Refer comment to TPC and THC.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
because the issue is subject to change as a result of the
values shifting (e.g. biodiversity) or because mapping of the
issue is an ongoing affair and by definition the responsibility for
those maps should sit with the relevant department (e.g.
geodiversity or hazard mapping). If we were to map those
issues as part of the planning scheme as endorsed overlays,
we would always be years behind, because updates would not
occur with regular enough frequency and this could result in
the ludicrous scenario that known issues are not addressed
because planning scheme maps are not up to date, even
though up to date mapping does exist in other spheres of
government. Suggest that those types of maps also be
displayed on the List and that the Enquire and Assess modules
interrogate those maps in their searches to determine if
particular codes apply.
This is a concern for TPC, ICON and THC.
9.5 Access Across Land In
Another Zone
GCC
This clause is necessary to provide for a series of specified
departures in the Glenorchy Planning Scheme 1992, and is a
pragmatic solution to unintended consequences upon use and
development of split zonings.
Support noted.
Link to Local Government
(Buildings and Miscellaneous
Provisions) Act 1993.
HCC
Refer comments above in:
General Comments – Subdivision: Link to LG(BMP) Act 1993.
Agree.
A clause requiring all subdivisions and boundary
adjustments to comply with Part 3 LGBMP is to be
included within the regional model scheme.
A general provision is to be added to Part C, Section 9,
which would thus ride over all zone and code
provisions addressing subdivision.
10.0 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE
92
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
10.1.1.3
TasWater
“To provide for the efficient utilisation of reticulated services”
Not just reticulated services, all services
Recommend:
Remove ‘reticulated’.
Agree.
10.1.1
GCC
A number of the regional policies from the regional strategy are
to be implemented through the standards in the scheme. For
example 'Ensure relevant planning scheme provisions include
Crime Prevention through Environmental Design Principles'.
When undertaking a discretionary assessment of any of the
standards that attempt to implement those policies, guidance
for that assessment is provided through zone purpose
statements. As such, all of the zone purpose statements need
to include statements that reflect relevant regional policies. At
this point few if any such purpose statements are provided in
any of the zones. It is considered that all zone purpose
statements should be reviewed against relevant regional
policies.
Clause 8.10.2 of the Template only provides for
consideration of the zone purpose statements when
determining applications for discretionary uses and not
development which does not comply with a
performance criterion. There is therefore little benefit
in adding zone purpose statements which reflect
regional policies related to development.
GCC
These Desired Future Character Statements only come into
force if a discretion is applied for. As such, the acceptable
solutions should be such that the character is protected. This is
in fact not the case, particularly as a result of PD4, as such the
desired future character will never be achieved. It is considered
that where this is the case, the base standards for the zones
should be able to be added to or overridden by standards that
apply to these specific desired future character areas. This is
considered critical if we want to preserve areas that have
specific local character and to create a 'community identity' and
'liveable communities' (part of regional strategy SD 10, creating
Noted, it is difficult to draft quantifiable acceptable
solutions addressing issues such as character and
liveable communities. A ‘streetscape code’, ‘local
character code’ or specific area plan is a better option
for protecting identified local character.
Zone Purpose Statements
10.3.1
Desired Future Character
Statements
93
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
liveable communities'. Note that it may actually be prudent to
change the regional strategy by creating a relevant policy to
provide the justification for this.
The desired future character areas apply to geographic areas.
GCC has mapped these areas on the zoning maps. However,
no machinery clause provides guidance on the spatial
application of DFC statements and corresponding overlays.
10.2
GCC
Ancillary dwelling does not need to be separately mentioned in
any of the use tables as the template definition of single
dwelling includes ancillary dwelling.
Agree
P56
Are local shops and visitor accommodation assessed against
10.3.1 discretionary uses and the specific standards or only
e.g. the visitor accommodation standard for a visitor
accommodation? Needs clarification. If a visitor
accommodation is discretionary and meets the acceptable
solutions what is it assessed against? Why not permitted if it
meets the standards and increase the requirements under the
standards. These comments apply to all residential zones in
which visitor acc are discretionary
Local shops and visitor accommodation would be
assessed against 10.3.1 discretionary uses and the
specific standards; clarification of this is not required.
GCC
A1: Why restrict it to office and administrative tasks? E.g. a
baker should be ok, if he can do it without creating noise or
other amenity issues?
It is safe to assume that office tasks will not cause any
amenity impacts. The same cannot always be said for
other activities.
GCC
A2: At Clarence there was a long-standing issue in relation to
a bakery, opposite to a residence. If my memory services me
right, one of the issues was noise from a doorbell that sounded
in the shop to alert the shopkeeper that there was a customer.
This bell would go of at 5am, when the baker arrived, and
This situation is too unusual to consider regulating in a
planning scheme.
Use Table
10.3
Use Standards
10.3.1 A1
Discretionary Use
10.3.1 A2
Discretionary Use
94
However - see comments on this issue under General
Comments – Visitor Accommodation. Intention is to
make Visitor Accommodation permitted in most zones.
The discretionary use standards would then not apply.
Rely on EMPCA.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
invariably woke the neighbours. The bakers baking activity was
not the issue, but the doorbell scenario would be permitted
under A2 clause.
10.3.1 A2/P2 & A4/P4
P14
This would require an acoustic report and air quality for all
discretionary uses (including visitor accommodation) which is
unreasonable. Also if compliance is demonstrated is Council
then required to undertake acoustic assessment to ensure
compliance?
An acoustic and air quality report for all discretionary
uses would not be required, it would be sufficient for
the application to state that the standard would be
complied with. This would then form part of the
approved permit. No change recommended.
GCC
A3: This clause should include illuminated signs, in addition, I
would suggest that 6pm is too early to turn lights off.
The signs code provides that an illuminated sign must
not be located within 30m of a residential use. Lighting
hours should be consistent with operation hours, see
general comments on operating hours.
GCC
P3: ' … not adversely affect residential,' is it meant to be 'not
adversely affect residential amenity'?
Yes.
P3: What if the adjacent land is vacant or the house is a long
way away, but a house can be constructed there in the future?
Not sufficient to only consider existing development.
Suggest amend P3 as follows:
GCC
A5: Suggest that the hours be changed to be consistent with
the Environmental Management and Pollution Control
(Miscellaneous Noise) Regulations (note that they are currently
under review) The hours there are: 7.00am to 6pm Monday to
Fridays, 8am to 6pm Saturdays and 10am to 6pm Sundays
and Public Holidays.
See general comments on operating hours.
STRPP
This was left blank in the June-July 2013 public consultation
drafts, in anticipation of the new state-wide provisions from the
If the anticipated new state-wide provisions from the
State are not finalised before the Southern Schemes
Discretionary Use
10.3.1 A3
Discretionary Use
10.3.1 P3
Discretionary Use
10.3.1 P3
GCC
Discretionary Use
10.3.1
Discretionary Use
10.4
Development Standards for
95
Correct this clause.
External lighting must not adversely affect existing or
future residential amenity, having regard to all of the
following:
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Buildings and Works
Comment or Suggestion
State.
are formally submitted to the Minister, the region has
inputted the latest draft.
It is recommended that we ensure consistent
numbering/names of headings between zones, to the
maximum extent possible.
Not agree.
Residential Development
10.4
Development Standards for
Buildings and Works
Residential Development
Desired Future Character
Statements
GCC
Regional Project Response
To accommodate multiple headings under for example
'Development standards for Buildings and Works' it is
recommended that we renumber as follows: (Note that this
would also provide for potential additional local headings such
as proposed in Glenorchy in relation to a development on land
subject to Desired Future Character Statements):
10.4 Development Standards for Buildings and Works
10.4.1 Residential Development other than residential
development subject to Desired Future Character
Statements
10.4.2 Non Residential Development other than residential
development subject to Desired Future Character
Statements
10.4.3 Land Subject to Desired Future Character
Statements
Note that we should aim to shorten the names of headings as
much as possible, I have not made any suggestions in relation
to that in this example, though the headings are clearly
excessively long.
Do we need a machinery clause of some description that
provides that where any of the provisions in 'Land Subject to
Desired Future Character Statements' are inconsistent with
96
If Desired Future Character Statements (DFCS)
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
other standards, these standards override? And/or, would
individual standards be better added to relevant existing
clauses. e.g. A1, which relates to building setback could be a
sub clause of the relevant general building setback clause.
and/or, should the standard be a level up in the table of
contents tree, so that we for example would have: 10.4
Development Standards for Buildings and Works 10.4.1
Residential Development other than residential development
subject to Desired Future Character Statements 10.4.2 Non
Residential Development other than residential development
subject to Desired Future Character Statements 10.4.3 Land
Subject to Desired Future Character Statements.
Regional Project Response
require specific development standards, they should
be transferred to a code. E.G. a ‘local character code’.
STRPP assumes DFCSs would be triggered by
references in Performance Criteria within regular
development standards.
Do we need to have provisions for redevelopment in the event
of a fire? E.g., demolition is provided for under A3, but it
prohibits demolition in certain circumstances. Could/should we
require reconstruction in such an event in a manner that
replicates the buildings original presence in the streetscape.
Do we need to provide for lot design, including sizes etc for
subdivision?
10.5
GCC
This clause will need to be reviewed when PD4 is approved.
Agreed.
GCC
Agree.
Development Standards for
Buildings and Works
P1(b) (i) and (ii) 'overlooking and loss ' should be 'overlooking
or loss', because 'or' includes 'and', whereas 'and' does not
include 'or'.
Non-Residential Provisions
The same applies to (ii): 'overshadowing or reduction of
Development Standards for
Buildings and Works
Non-Residential Provisions
10.5.1
97
Change.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Building Height
10.5.1
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
sunlight to habitable rooms or private open space'.
GCC
P1 (c) this clause effectively prevents any variation to height
where the NIL is relatively flat, is that necessary?
TRG discussion.
GCC
P1 how assess impact on undeveloped or underdeveloped
residential lots?
Explanation.
(b) suggest rewording as follows:
Following the inclusion of residential standards in this
zone these provisions have been redrafted.
Development Standards for
Buildings and Works
Non-Residential Provisions
Building Height
10.5.1
Development Standards for
Buildings and Works
Future buildings on neighbouring lots can’t be
considered under P1(b) (ii).
Non-Residential Provisions
Building Height
10.5.1
GCC
Development Standards for
Buildings and Works
(b) contain building areas suitable for residential
development at densities higher than that for the General
Residential Zone and located to avoid hazards and other
site restrictions
Non-Residential Provisions
Building Height
10.5.1
GCC
Development Standards for
Buildings and Works
(c) result in a mix of lot sizes within the zone to enable a
variety of dwelling and household types (if a developer is
only subdividing a lot into 2, he can't really provide a 'mix
of lot sizes' in that subdivision!)
Non-Residential Provisions
Building Height
10.5.1
Development Standards for
Buildings and Works
(c) suggest rewording as follows:
GCC
P3 This clause should encourage sharing of driveways and
rear access, not require each lot to have vehicular access from
the frontage. E.g. a 6m frontage would be dominated by a 3m
98
Following the inclusion of residential standards in this
zone these provisions have been redrafted.
Following the inclusion of residential standards in this
zone these provisions have been redrafted.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
Non-Residential Provisions
Building Height
From
Comment or Suggestion
wide driveway! It also encourages frontages that are
dominated by garages or vehicle parking, where if we require
parking behind the dwelling, and not make it mandatory to
have vehicle access from the frontage it will encourage shared
access lanes. We should also not be encouraging internal lots,
internal areas should be used for open space and vehicular
access. We need to encourage buildings that front public areas
and encourage development with conjoined housing and
apartments. Also, what is the min frontage for internal lots?
Suggest a reword as follows:
The primary frontage of each lot must satisfy one of the
following, :
(a) be between 6 and 10m wide if a building area is
provided demonstrating that the lots will be developed
with conjoined housing and vehicular access to lots is
shared between a minimum of two lots and vehicular
parking will be behind the dwelling.
(b) be more than 10m wide if a building area is provided
demonstrating all of the following:
(i) the lot(s) will be developed with an apartment
building
(ii) a single vehicular access provides access to
parking behind the apartment or below the ground
floor of the apartment where the ground floor is no
more than 1m above the ngl of the footpath directly in
front of the building
(iii) all dwellings in the apartment building front a public
road, a public footway or public open space.
99
Regional Project Response
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
10.5.1
From
P4 suggest that it includes a statement that "lots accessed via
a fee simple strip or ROW are only permitted where a building
area is provided demonstrating that all future dwellings on the
lot will front, have pedestrian access from, and provide passive
surveillance of public space, including roads, footways, parks
and the like". This will enable subdivisions that provides for
houses fronting parks, houses fronting main roads, but
vehicular access is provided from minor roads and houses
fronting for example the Glenorchy cycle way.
Following the inclusion of residential standards in this
zone these provisions have been redrafted.
GCC
P2(a), P4(a) and P5 are not desirable for areas subject to
DFCS, how should we provide for those areas? (Perhaps we
should not rezone those areas to Inner Res, rather, they
should remain General Res, along the lines that rezoning to
Inner Res is not a right, therefore they are not loosing out on
any thing that they previously had, and it means that there is
not an expectation that they can do more based on their zone
and it means that fewer standards need to have 'alternative
provisions' to specifically provide for these DFCS areas.
Following the inclusion of residential standards in this
zone these provisions have been redrafted.
GCC
A1, P1, A2 and P2: Setback provisions appear to apply to
fences etc. as follows:
Following the inclusion of residential standards in this
zone these provisions have been redrafted.
Non-Residential Provisions
Building Height
Development Standards for
Buildings and Works
Non-Residential Provisions
Building Height
10.5.2
Development Standards for
Buildings and Works
Setback
Regional Project Response
GCC
Development Standards for
Buildings and Works
10.5.1
Comment or Suggestion
The definition for 'setback' is 'the distance from any lot
boundary to a building on the lot.'
The term 'building' is also a defined term and means 'as
defined in the Act', which defines it as: '(a) a structure and part
of a building or structure; and
(b) fences, walls, out-buildings, service installations and other
appurtenances of a building; and
100
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
(c) a boat or a pontoon which is permanently moored or fixed
to land;'
Given the above two definitions, fences, garden walls (low or
otherwise) and pontoons also have to comply with setback
distances in these clauses. This is clearly not the intention and
should be fixed.
10.5.2
GCC
P1 and P2 both the terms 'amenity' and the term 'streetscape'
are defined terms and the definitions should come up with pop
up boxes.
Following the inclusion of residential standards in this
zone these provisions have been redrafted.
GCC
A1 and A2 Why quote the term 'Acceptable Solution in these
clauses, we don't do that anywhere else. (if we do need to
quote it, than it should not be capitalised)
Following the inclusion of residential standards in this
zone these provisions have been redrafted.
GCC
P2 (b) (iii) suggest to delete ‘through building bulk and
massing’ and replace with ‘taking into consideration matters
like building bulk, massing, colour, texture, building materials,
translucency etc.’
Following the inclusion of residential standards in this
zone these provisions have been redrafted.
P14
This contravenes Planning Directive 4 by restricting houses
Following the inclusion of residential standards in this
zone these provisions have been redrafted.
Development Standards for
Buildings and Works
Setback
10.5.2
Development Standards for
Buildings and Works
Setback
10.5.2
Development Standards for
Buildings and Works
Setback
10.5.3
Development Standards for
Buildings and Works
10.5.3
Development Standards for
of a particular size
GCC
Why call the standard 'Design' when the only thing it relates to
is 'gross floor area' (e.g. suggest that the standard be called
'Gross Floor Area'. On the other hand, it may be appropriate to
101
Following the inclusion of residential standards in this
zone these provisions have been redrafted.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Buildings and Works
GCC
The objective refers to location, the standard deals only with
gross floor area. Also, suggest to make the objective a more
positive statement, e.g. 'To ensure that the size of buildings
and works contributes positively to the streetscape and
protects the amenity of adjoining land.'
Following the inclusion of residential standards in this
zone these provisions have been redrafted.
GCC
A1 and P1, If a person owns a large site and proposes to
construct a number of buildings that would together be more
than 450m2, that would be prohibited, even if individual
buildings were no more than say 100m2. Suggest that the
clause be amended to state that 'the gross floor area of any
one building must be no more than'.
Following the inclusion of residential standards in this
zone these provisions have been redrafted.
GCC
P1 The expression ‘Desired Future Character Statements’
should not be capitalised [drafting Guideline 3.4.3(b)(iii)]. This
needs to be rectified throughout the ordinance, can the Icon
software do a ‘find and replace’?
Following the inclusion of residential standards in this
zone these provisions have been redrafted.
The 20m limit on separation between the dwelling and ancillary
dwelling has no policy base and may make reasonable
circumstances prohibited.
This standard is to be removed, the definition of
ancillary dwelling is sufficient to limit separation.
Objective: why refer to 'non-residential use' in this statement?
This standard only applies to non-residential use, so the term
'non residential' can be deleted.
Agree
Development Standards for
Buildings and Works
Design
10.5.3
Development Standards for
Buildings and Works
Design
10.5.3
Regional Project Response
include other design standards, e.g. require articulated building
facades, roofs pitched to a particular min gradient, fenestration
in all walls, no blank walls exceeding a particular size area etc.
Design
10.5.3
Comment or Suggestion
Development Standards for
Buildings and Works
Design
10.5.4 P1
Development Standards for
Buildings and Works
Ancillary Dwellings
10.5.5
Development Standards for
Buildings and Works
GCC
102
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Outdoor Storage Areas
10.5.5
GCC
Development Standards for
Buildings and Works
Outdoor Storage Areas
Objective why use the term 'appearance' in the objective and
'amenity' in P1? Appearance is not defined by the scheme and,
whilst not specifically mentioned, I am sure that appearance is
a factor that helps determine amenity (amenity is a defined
term). Note that drafting guideline 3.2.4.4 states that:
Agree, change to ‘amenity’
"(a) Wording used for the same thing, purpose or function in
different parts of the planning scheme must be precisely the
same.
(b) Only be different if different meaning or purpose is meant."
10.5.5
GCC
Development Standards for
Buildings and Works
A1 suggest a redraft of the list numbered text:
Agree
"(a) be located behind the building line:
(b) all goods and materials stored must be screened from
public view;
Outdoor Storage Areas
(c) not encroach on car parking areas, driveways or
landscaped areas."
10.6.
KC
Lot design
The objectives for lot design should be consistent with the local
area objectives as well as the zone purpose.
Recommend:
Agree.
Add: “ …. and any relevant Local Area Objectives or
Desired Future Character Statements”.
Amend 10.6.1(a) to include local area objectives as well as the
zone purpose.
10.6.
Lot design
KC
As the residential zone in Kingborough includes areas with
environmental values, the objectives for lot design should
reflect this.
Not agree.
Recommend:
Note, however, that the STRPP’s view is that any land
103
Suggest KC add a new local subclause (h) for this
purpose.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
10.6.1
From
P102
Lot design
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Enable the regional mandatory objective (b) to be expanded for
Kingborough to include being located to avoid environmental
values as well as hazards.
otherwise suitable to be General Residential but
contains values that the local Council wishes to
preserve should be zoned Low Density Residential
instead.
Re P4 while we support the principle of including Performance
Criteria which limit the ability to create internal lot we are
concerned that their prohibition from subdivision where they
would be access from new roads may prevent the best use
and most economic use of residential land and therefore be
inconsistent with the purpose of the zone which includes:
Agree, some flexibility should be provided.
10.1.1.3 To provide for the efficient utilisation of reticulated
services.
Remove absolute prohibition on internal lots accessed
from a new road.
A suitable test is needed within the performance
criteria to ensure the creation of internal lots is not
used to avoid the costs of constructing a public road in
circumstances where one should be provided.
While not a preferred style of lot internal lots can be
appropriate where the development site has topographic or
other site constraints which a subdivision is attempting to
respond to. The occasional usage of internal lots will also
allow for the creation of torrens titles rather than relying on
strata development to achieve the minimum density
requirements elsewhere in these standards.
10.6.1
GCC
Should there be a requirement that all lots must be within 10
(?) minutes walking distance of local shops or an activity centre
and a public transport route?
No, this would be unnecessarily restrictive, if an area is
not suitable for residential subdivision because it is
isolated from services it should not be in this zone.
GCC
Objective: (c) must have an 's' after 'lot size'
Agree
GCC
Objective (d) Does the term 'including' allow for 'including but
not limited to'? Or does the term 'including' limit the matters for
consideration to the matters specified? Why specify examples
'Including' allows for 'including but not limited to', this is
consistent with the approach used throughout. The
Lot design
10.6.1
Lot design
10.6.1
Lot design
104
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
10.6.1
From
Comment or Suggestion
anyway? Does the 'term 'amenity' not adequately cover it?
(note, it may be appropriate to provide a footnote to the
definition for 'amenity' that lists as many as possible of these
types of considerations
examples provide additional guidance.
GCC
Objective (e) a definition is needed for 'net density'
Agree, net density excludes the area set aside for
roads and open space.
GCC
A2 (d) is the slope calculated as an overall slope for the
building area, or is it anywhere within the building area?
It is the overall slope.
GCC
A2 (d) suggest a rewrite as follows: ‘slope not exceeding 1 in 8’
Not agree.
Lot design
10.6.1
Lot design
10.6.1
Lot design
10.6.1
Regional Project Response
Against drafting guideline.
GCC
Lot design
A2 (e) suggest a rewrite as follows: ‘the long axis of the
building area faces north or within 20 degrees west or 30
degrees east of north
Agree
[ in accordance with drafting guideline 3.2.4.4(a):
‘Wording used for the same thing, purpose or function in
different parts of the planning scheme must be precisely the
same.’
As such use ‘building area’, not ‘developable area’.]
10.6.1
GCC
A2 (f) delete ‘is’
Not agree
GCC
P2(a) Is ‘reasonably capable’ sufficient (how do you ever work
that out?) or should it state that it must be demonstrated?
Explanation:
P2(e) This clause P2 is about a building envelope, why does it
deal with parking, maneuvering and POS on the lot?
It is about building ‘area’ not building ‘envelope’. The
building area needs to accommodate parking and open
Lot design
10.6.1
Lot design
10.6.1
GCC
105
It goes without saying that it must be demonstrated.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Lot design
10.6.1
space.
GCC
A3 and P3, effectively currently there is no min frontage
requirement for an internal lot. Suggest that the exception
clause be removed from A3, a min width is included in the
table (e.g. 4m) and the min frontage for an internal lot in P3
should remain the same as it is in A3. Unless we do this, we
end up having two apparently contradicting clauses, A3, which
deals with min frontage and could be interpreted to mean that
there is no min frontage for internal lots and P4(f), which
provides for a min fee simple or ROW frontage of 4m. The
recommended principle is that frontage, design and size are all
dealt with in their relative subclauses for all types of lots,
including internal lots and that A4 deals only with issues that
are peculiar to internal lots only.
Not agree, the intention of the minimum frontage in P4
is that it cannot be varied.
GCC
P4(a) does this potentially leave the door open for the creation
of 1000m2 lots off a new road, each of which can then be
applied for to be re-subdivided into 2 lots, one of which would
be an internal lot?
Yes, change to; ‘existing prior to the planning scheme
coming into effect’.
GCC
P4(c) It may be perfectly possible to subdivide into two narrow
lots to provide for two under one roof houses (one on each lot)
thus avoiding an internal lot or it may be desirable to create an
internal lot that actually fronts open space, cycle way etc.
Suggest that the clause be reworded to: ‘the lot constitutes the
only reasonable way to subdivide an existing lot or the body of
the internal lot fronts and provides passive surveillance for
open space ’
Agree in part, insert new sub clause; ‘the lot adjoins
public open space or a public right of way’.
GCC
P4 (f) It is disagreed that it is ok to have ROW frontage only.
ROW frontage is allowed under LGB&MP Act 1993
Lot design
10.6.1
Lot design
10.6.1
Lot design
10.6.1
Regional Project Response
106
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Lot design
10.6.1
Lot design
GCC
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Furthermore, suggest that this clause be deleted and A3 P3 be
amended to provide for frontage as described above.
and should not be precluded. Re A3/P3 comment as
above.
P4(g) Need to define appropriate distances for passing bays,
the GCC scheme currently provides:
This is addressed in E6.7.3.
“10.4.5 For residential Use or Development other than
Single Dwelling, Home Activity, Home Business or Auxiliary
Dwelling vehicular access shall be designed and
constructed so that:
(a) the minimum internal width is 3 metres for up to three
Dwelling Units and 3.5 metres for four or more Dwelling
Units and
(a) a passing bay with dimensions of 5.5 metres wide by 6
metres deep is provided at the Road Alignment and
(b) passing bays with dimensions of 5.5 metres wide by 6
metres deep are provided at intervals of not more than 45
metres.
10.4.6. Notwithstanding Clause 10.4.5, a passing bay at
the Road Alignment shall not be required for residential
Use or Development where the mathematical product of
the existing or predicted peak hourly traffic vehicle
movements on the Road and the number of dwellings does
not exceed 300. (Note: information as to the existing or
predicted peak hour traffic vehicle movements for Roads in
the City is available from the Council).
10.4.7. For commercial and industrial Use or Development
vehicular access shall be designed and constructed so
that:
107
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
(a) the minimum internal width is 3 metres or 3.6 metres if
used by trucks or heavy vehicles
(b) where a single entry/exit point is provided a passing bay
with dimensions of 6 metres wide by 6 metres deep shall
be provided adjacent to the Road Alignment, unless such
access is to be used by trucks or heavy vehicles, then the
dimensions shall be 7 metres wide by 6 metres deep.”
10.6.1
GCC
Lot design
P4 (h) This clause would allow for a situation of one driveway
to the front lot, next to two internal lot access trips, next to
another driveway to another front lot. The aim should be to not
ever increase the number of accesses to the road, so we don’t
end up with multiple (potentially high fenced’ driveways next to
each other. Suggest that the clause be amended to read:
The standard as worded is considered appropriate, it
does not allow for an excessive number of adjacent
access strips.
‘The access strip must comply with all of the following:
(a) provide shared vehicular access to at least one other lot
where any of those other lots do not have any other
vehicular access
(b) not be located next to any other fee simple access strip
(c) not provide access to more than 4 lots.’
10.6.1
GCC
Lot design
10.6.1
Lot design P4
P14
P4(i) What does ‘at the time of subdivision mean?, suggest it
be reworded: ‘A sealed driveway is to be provided on the
access strip prior to the sealing of any plan’ (should we also
specify a construction standard e.g. width, seal etc. here?)
Agree.
The clause needs some 'and'' or' definition. New subdivisions
clearly cannot meet (a) as there will be no existing road.
Subclauses (f) to (i) have a different function in that they are
The general intention of P4 is to stop the creation of
internal lots in new subdivision estates, but allow for
internal lots in existing areas. In other words, the road
layout in new subdivision estates should enable the full
108
Reword to say ‘prior to the sealing of the final plan’.
Construction standards are provided in E6.7.2.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
providing conditions for internal lots.
Regional Project Response
subdivision of the land without internal lots.
However; agree - some flexibility should be provided.
Remove absolute prohibition on internal lots accessed
from a new road.
A suitable test is needed within the performance
criteria to ensure the creation of internal lots is not
used to avoid the costs of constructing a public road in
circumstances where one should be provided.
10.6.1
Higher density around all public open space is questionable,
would you want higher density around a bushland reserve with
a fire risk? Higher densities around schools is desirable. Given
local shops are a permitted use in the General Residential
zone shouldn't the density be attached to business zones
which are more permanent and reflect the majority of local
convenience/supermarket store locations.
Agree.
GCC
P5 (a) Not sure how this would work in practice, e.g. what does
‘along’ a public transport corridor mean? Only if a bus goes
past the door and not if the first lot on a side road from a road
with a public transport corridor? Should we define what a
public corridor is, either in writing or by mapping them? What
actual density is density ‘higher’ than 15 dwellings per hectare?
How do you work the density out, only on the lot to be
subdivided, or over a larger area? Do we even need density
figures, when we have min and max lot sizes?
‘Public transport corridor’ is an adequate description
for a performance criterion.
GCC
P5(b) in accordance with A1 and P1 and Table 10.1, A balance
lot can’t be considered, see suggestions on those clauses.
Table 10.1 does allow for balance lots under the
heading ‘Maximum Lot Size’.
P14
Lot design P5
10.6.1
Lot design
10.6.1
Lot design
109
Review wording of clause to provide flexibility.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
10.6.1 P5 (a)
From
HCC
Lot density requirements.
10.6.2
Roads
DIER
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
P5 (a) is confusing. Does this mean that we have to work out
the density in terms of a 1 hectare radius around the proposed
subdivision, including existing houses on existing lots within
that radius? Or do we somehow work out what 15 dwellings
per ha is in square metres, and then work out whether the four
proposed lots have this square meterage?
Explanation:
To facilitate better connectivity for public transport, walking and
cycling for new residential subdivisions, DIER submits that
additional provisions should be added, or existing provisions
(10.6.2) strengthened. The intent should be that new
residential development is based on an interconnected street
network that:
Agree, review P1.
•
minimises the travel distance between two points,
especially key destinations, such as shops, and
•
in its design, facilitates walking, cycling and the efficient
movement of public transport.
To facilitate walking, cycling and public transport use, road
infrastructure (i.e. roads, cycle ways, and footpaths) should be
designed so that it is attractive, safe and secure for the user.
Public transport facilities, such as bus stops, should be
provided where appropriate (i.e. in convenient locations which
serve attractors). Where a subdivision is not located on a bus
route or able to be serviced by a future bus route, direct and
safe pedestrian access should be provided to a bus route/bus
stop.
The design of roads also needs to ensure the effective
manoeuvrability of larger vehicles (e.g. buses).
110
The provision can only apply to the land subject to the
application.
Agree delete (a), density is controlled through A1/P1.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
10.6.2
From
P1 and Objective, do we need to specifically identify planning
of roads in relation to public transport? e.g. we have some
roads that are not suitable for buses and perhaps should have
been.
Rewording as per DIER comment above will address
this.
GCC
P1(e) Should we have more guidance on when cul de sac's
are or are not acceptable? As it is, a subdivision with one cul
de sac could conceivably comply with (e) yet there may have
been a better solution that provides for connectivity, or does (g)
sufficiently balance (e)?
Rewording as per DIER comment above will address
this.
GCC
P1(c) suggest that neighbouring land may be too limiting, e.g.
new intersections need to consider potential future
intersections on lots across the road, or a lot may be part of a
series of lots and their future road layout needs to be
considered in total, not just in relation to the adjoining lot.
Suggest that (c) be redrafted along the following lines: 'the
future subdivision of any land with subdivision potential in the
vicinity is facilitated through the provision of connector roads to
boundaries in locations that will facilitate suitable subdivision
on such land' and suggest the inclusion of an additional clause
that enables assessment of the location at which a new road
connection to an existing road network occurs, e.g. there are
occasions where you want a straight crossing to another road
and occasions where you want to offset roads, (irrespective if
that is an existing road or a potential road on a to be
subdivided near by lot) what clause currently allows you to
consider that ?
Agree, insert ‘or nearby’ after ‘neighbouring’.
GCC
A1 and P1 I think a TIA is necessary for any subdivisions to
ensure that the traffic generated by the subdivision can be
This is an application requirement and could be
Roads
10.6.2
Roads
10.6.2
Regional Project Response
GCC
Roads
10.6.2
Comment or Suggestion
111
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Roads
10.6.2
requested under clause 8.1.2.
P14
(c) should include pedestrian paths not just roads, (f) internal
lots should be minimised not prohibited. There are some
instances where internal lots are necessary, (h) is covered by
(g).
Agree, review wording of clause
P14
'Ways' should be a defined term, (g) again is likely to be
unlawful as it refers to documents that may post-date the
gazetted scheme.
The ordinary meaning of ‘way’ is acceptable, (g)
should have the status of ‘have regard to’ rather than
‘must satisfy’.
HCC
These provisions are inadequate.
Agree – in part.
POS contribution requirements should refer to or reflect the
provisions in LGBMP.
As commented elsewhere by HCC and supported by
STRPP, planning scheme subdivision provisions
should link to LGBMP.
Ways and Public Open Space
10.6.3
Regional Project Response
accommodated on the existing road network even it is not
involved in any new roads. Also it is so important to assess the
proposed new roads (if applicable) in terms of geometry and
road safety measures (e.g. sight distances). For this reason, I
strongly recommend that a TIA must be prepared for all
subdivision applications.
Roads
10.6.3
Comment or Suggestion
Ways and Public Open Space
However it is proposed that this by done through one
general provision in Part C, Section 9, rather than
through multiple references through the scheme
standards.
10.6.3
Ways and Public Open Space
GCC
P1(e) Councils have been selling foot ways where they run
between residential properties, because of the number of
complaints from adjoining neighbours. Issues arise from lack of
passive surveillance (high fencing on adjoining land), width too
narrow, opportunities for entrapment, lack of amenity in the
foot way, crime being committed from and on the foot ways,
112
The objective for the standard as worded would allow
consideration of the issues raised. See rewording of
(e) proposed in 11.5.3.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
lack of lighting, properties backing onto foot ways instead of
fronting them. Suggest that the performance criteria should
provide better guidance on all these matters including that all
ways and public open space must have dwellings fronting them
(see WA's liveable neighbourhoods)
10.6.3
GCC
P1(h) are foot ways part of the road network or are they public
open space?
Pedestrian footways are public open space.
GCC
Objective How can you defend an appeal using the objective
'appropriate level of services'?
Agree, this objective should give more guidance.
GCC
P4 allows to not have any vehicular access and does not
provide for guidance on how to assess a proposal that does
not have any vehicular access, is that intended?
See comments in 11.5.4.
P14
There is no strategic justification for A4 and the PC leaves a
second access arguing on safety grounds. There are a number
of sensible circumstances that may require multiple crossovers
such as large unit sites, corner sites or an aged care facility
with a porte cochere arrangement.
Agree, review clause wording to provide more
flexibility.
HCC
10.6.4 - Connected is not equal to serviced. A suitable area for
development must be able to be serviced via gravity by
Council’s stormwater system and reticulated sewer, and the
potable water supply to have adequate pressure for domestic
and fire-fighting purposes in the General Residential Zone.
Lots which require pumps or onsite disposal in general
residential (lot sizes 450-1000m2) should not be created.
Explanation:
Ways and Public Open Space
10.6.4
Services
10.6.4
Services
10.6.4
Services
10.6.4
Services
113
The details for water and sewer serving are now
address via TasWater and its regulatory regime and do
not need to be covered under LUPAA planning
schemes.
It is enough for ‘planning’ to know that new lots will be
connected within the General Residential Zone - as per
the State’s purpose statement for this zone. Lots that
would require onsite wastewater treatment are not to
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
be created in the General Residential Zone.
Stormwater, however, is Councils responsibility. It is
agreed A3 should refer to a stormwater system able to
service the Building Area (refer 10.6.1) by gravity.
Table 10.1
If a lot has a slope greater than 1 in 5, the minimum lot size is
750m2. If it adjoins open space/transport corridor/200m of a
business zone, is its maximum lot size still 600m2, or do we
disregard maximum lot size? If it's 600m2, the provision is
difficult to follow.
Explanation:
GCC
Should we allow for balance lots perhaps with a proviso of
demonstrating how the balance lot can be subdivided in
accordance with min lot size standards and then placing a
building envelope on that lot to ensure such subdivision is not
compromised in the future or, should it allow for staging of
subdivisions, so that a developer does not have to 'flood' the
market with all lots in one go and or have to undertake all
infrastructure construction in one go? (again with specific
controls that prevent development on the land subject to later
stages that would compromise compliance with development
standards when such lots are subdivided in the future) (note, if
we do this, we may need to review A5)
Table 10.1 does allow for balance lots under the
heading ‘Maximum Lot Size’.
GCC
How do we ensure that a lot will actually be 'designated' for
multiple dwellings or retirement village? At what density should
multiple dwellings be provided for? (e.g. two dwellings on a
4000m2 lot clearly would not be consistent with intent) Suggest
a rewrite to tighten it up and amend the list numbers, which
Designation would be by way of notation on the title or
part V Agreement. Multiple dwelling density is
specified in the residential density standard.
HCC
Lot size requirements.
Table 10.1
Lot size requirements.
Table 10.1
Lot size requirements.
114
The reference to 1 in 5 slope is directly under the
heading ‘minimum lot size’. Therefore, this factor
trumps all others. If it’s a steep block, it must be at
least 750 m2, regardless of whether it is a corner lot,
ordinary lot, etc.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
should start at (a).
"Unless, a lot is legally bound to be developed with either of
the following:
(a) multiple dwellings at a minimum density of x and a max
density of y;
(b) retirement village or residential aged care facility,
in which case the lot size is to be fit for purpose."
Table 10.1
SMC
Lot size requirements.
The proposed minimum lot size for the General Residential
Zone is 450m2. Currently the minimum size in the township of
Oatlands (and the only General Residential Zone in the
Southern Midlands) is 600m2. Such a minimum lot size is
considered appropriate for a small rural town. It is
acknowledged that despite a smaller minimum lot size
stipulated in the draft (in line with other Council’s in the South)
that the subdivision standards still allow for varying lot sizes in
the residential zone.
Acknowledged.
The Heritage Code through the Heritage Precinct
overlay can apply this.
No changes to the regional model scheme provisions
for the General Residential Zone are necessary.
Recommendation
Within those areas of the General Residential Zone at
Oatlands covered by the Heritage Precincts, special local
provisions should apply that require (not just allow) variation in
lot size in order to fit with the historic character.
Table 10.1
P14
Should include higher densities around schools and allow for
larger subdivisions that may include business zones or open
space as part of their creation.
Agree, review wording of clause.
P14
Needs to be provision for large unit lots that would currently be
prohibited under the maximum frontage requirement.
Agree, review wording of clause.
Lot size requirements.
Table 10.2
115
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Lot frontage requirements.
11.0 INNER RESIDENTIAL ZONE
Explanatory note / footnote
GCC
What is the difference between a footnote and an explanatory
note? Do we need both?
Why have zone purpose statements here as well? Are all the
issues raised in these zone purpose statements reflected in
11.1.1? If not, this explanatory note would be misleading.
Explanatory notes only exist for the informal public
consultation and will not be present in the actual
schemes.
Explanatory note
GCC
The type of desirable development within the Inner residential
zone is considered to be significantly different, e.g. preference
for apartments, terrace housing etc, as opposed to single
dwellings and freestanding units. In addition the challenge of
how to achieve that outcome (e.g. the need to amalgamate
sites to achieve the ability to create integrated developments,
improved public space and economies of scale) are so
different that it may be a long straw to suggest that provisions
will be somewhat consistent in the Gen Res zone and the Inner
Res zone.
Relatively consistent provisions which are considered
to further the zone objective have been drafted.
11.1
GCC
It is considered that the numbering of clauses should be
reviewed in accordance with previous submission to the TPC
by Grietje van Randen. In relation to Zone Purpose
statements, it is considered that:
Numbering will be consistent with the Template
Planning Directive.
Zone Purpose
a. There should be a lead in for the statements
b. The individual statements should be numbered list
numbered 11.1.1(a), 11.1.1(b) etc, because the individual
116
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
statements do not have a heading in the table of contents.
11.2
TPC
Drafting error that needs amending in 11.2 Use Table, under
the permitted section.
Agree, it was intended that multiple dwellings be
permitted in the residential use class.
GCC
Residential Suggest that on land subject to DFCS Single
dwelling is NPR only.
Residential is ‘no permit required’.
GCC
The qualifications for home based business in the no permit
required category tightens even more the qualifications in the
defined term for home based business, it is considered
unnecessary to have differences, e.g. why would we want to
have a discretionary application for a home based business if
the floor area is between 30m and 50m when it is exempt if it is
less than 30m? By definition it impacts on no one, so there
would never be a reason why you would not allow the
variation, it would just frustrate the person who is having a go
with a micro business.
The home based business definition standards are too
generous to be ‘no permit required’, it allows
employment of up to 2 workers. Discretionary
assessment of larger home based businesses is
appropriate.
GCC
Community meeting and entertainment, replace the term
'place of worship' with 'church', it is the term used in the
description for the use class and in accordance with drafting
guideline 3.2.4.4 wording must be identical where the same
purpose is meant.
Agree
GCC
Transport depot and distribution, the qualification would
allow a bus terminal or a car park for passengers, this is
considered inappropriate in the zone, suggest that it be
changed to something more specific, e.g. 'only if bus stop'.
Agree, this use should be prohibited. Bus shelters on
public land are exempt under 6.2.2(b). This comment
applies in all residential zones.
GCC
Visitor accommodation, it could be P, there is no basis to
refuse it based on use if it complies with standards.
See comments under General – Visitor
Accommodation.
Use Table
11.2
Use Table
11.2
Use Table
11.2
Use Table
11.2
Use Table
11.2
117
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Use Table
11.2
P28
Sports and Recreation should be a discretionary use in this
zone to facilitate uses such as bowls clubs.
Agree, a number of sports and recreation uses could
be appropriate in the Inner Residential Zone, impacts
can be controlled through the discretionary use
standards and inappropriate uses can be refused on
the basis of the zone purpose statements. See also
general comment on sports and recreation uses.
HCC
Visitor accommodation is discretionary. If it meets A1 above
must it be approved?. As we can’t get to the PC to assess
against privacy etc. As all discretionary uses need to be
considered in regard to the zone purpose statements, even if a
use complies with all relevant acceptable solutions, it could be
refused based on the zone purpose. It might be appropriate to
supplement the zone purpose with a reference to privacy,
although that doesn’t help with the exercise of discretion per
se.. Perhaps it might be more ‘honest’ to not have the AS and
to turn it into a PC with P1 (a) and (b) being turned to an
unless it can be demonstrated that…..wording. A1 (c) and
P1(c) are the same. P1(c) needs to relate to existing on street
parking demand and capacity.
Explanation.
Heading and A1: what are hours of operation for visitor
accommodation? Suggest that the heading for this entire
standard be changed to exclude 'visitor accommodation'
(visitor accommodation is limited to 6 people, as such impact is
considered to be the same as for a dwelling, not comparable to
other commercial uses, which all these provisions appear to
relate to.
See comment under General – Discretionary uses –
Hours of Operation
Use Table
11.2 / 11.3.2
Use Status / Use Standards
Visitor Accommodation
11.3.1
Discretionary Use
GCC
118
As indicated in the General section, above, it is
propose that limited Visitor Accommodation be
permitted in many zones, including Inner Residential.
If in existing buildings and limited to the low number
provided in the use standard, privacy issues would
likely be not significantly greater than use for
residential purposes.
Refer comments in General section, above, regarding
parking.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
11.3.3
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
GCC
A1(b) delete the 'd' from 'and'
Agree
GCC
To prevent an undesirable 'ghetto' look and to ensure passive
surveillance and a quality streetscape, front fencing must have
limitations. Suggest an additional standard for fencing forward
of the building line.
These standards have been redrafted in order to
provide some consistency with the residential
standards in the General Residential Zone.
GCC
A standard is required to prevent frontages that are dominated
by vehicles or garages, such a standard needs to:
These standards have been redrafted in order to
provide some consistency with the residential
standards in the General Residential Zone.
Local shop
11.4
Buildings and Works
11.4
Buildings and Works
1. encourage sharing of driveways,
2. parking behind the dwelling (potentially by encouraging rear
lanes serving a group of dwellings and potentially coming in
from a road other than the one that the building fronts )
3. provide a max percentage of a front facade and a max width
taken up by a garage or carport for a single dwelling, terrace
etc.
11.4.1
GCC
Objective: It is considered undesirable to restrict amenity to
'residential' amenity, suggest that the term 'residential' be
deleted from the objective.
These standards have been redrafted in order to
provide some consistency with the residential
standards in the General Residential Zone.
GCC
P1(a) Many Performance Criteria refer to desired future
character statements (DFCS). Not all zones or schemes
include DFCS's, this is currently addressed using the term
'any', but is still criticised by users. Suggest that this criteria
always be last in a list and that it be regional optional, so that
individual planning authorities in individual zones can delete
the statement if it has no relevance in any particular zone.
These standards have been redrafted in order to
provide some consistency with the residential
standards in the General Residential Zone.
Buildings and Works
Building Height
11.4.1
Buildings and Works
Building Height
119
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
11.4.1
From
P1(b): this would potentially prevent apartments in an area that
needs to be transitioned from single dwellings on large lots to
alternative higher density living. Suggest that (b) be deleted
and leave only (d) which adequately protects amenity and
streetscape. So that we actively encourage change, not put
unnecessary hurdles in the way.
These standards have been redrafted in order to
provide some consistency with the residential
standards in the General Residential Zone.
GCC
P2 Suggest that it is unnecessary to have height consistent for
10m of Inner Res zoned land on the basis of building height of
existing buildings on Gen Res zoned land, what if such a
building is a carport or a shed? Suggest a clause that is more
consistent with P1 (d) 'Building height within 10 m of the
General Residential Zone must allow for a transition in height
between adjoining buildings, where appropriate'.
These standards have been redrafted in order to
provide some consistency with the residential
standards in the General Residential Zone.
GCC
Building height has the capacity to result in overshadowing of
solar panels. Solar panels are subsidized by the
commonwealth and are a substantial investment for private
land owners. As such have we checked that our as of right
height standards throughout the scheme are adequate to
protect the effectiveness of existing panels on existing roofs on
nearby development. Furthermore, P1 and P2 should also
consider any impact on existing or potential solar panels on
nearby buildings. Suggest the inclusion of a criteria for P1
along the lines of:
These standards have been redrafted in order to
provide some consistency with the residential
standards in the General Residential Zone.
Building Height
Buildings and Works
Building Height
11.4.1
Buildings and Works
Building Height
Regional Project Response
GCC
Buildings and Works
11.4.1
Comment or Suggestion
'not result in overshadowing of either of the following:
(i)solar panels on roofs in the vicinity;
(ii) roofs that are oriented between 45(?) degrees east or west
of north
120
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
between the hours of 9.00am and 4pm such that solar panels
or potential solar panels become significantly less viable.'
A clause addressing the same issue should be included in P2.
This issue needs to be addressed in other zones as well.
11.4.2
P93
Maximum building height should be increased to 12m.
These standards have been redrafted in order to
provide some consistency with the residential
standards in the General Residential Zone, the
maximum height in the performance criteria has been
removed.
GCC
Objective: No need to use the term 'residential' as a qualifier
for 'amenity' and no need to refer to 'land in a residential zone',
suggest amend the objective to read: 'To ensure that building
setback provides a quality streetscape with an urban character
and does not result in unreasonable impact on amenity.
These standards have been redrafted in order to
provide some consistency with the residential
standards in the General Residential Zone.
GCC
There is no standard for side or rear setback other than for
setbacks to the Gen Res zone, clearly a side and rear setback
provision is required.
These standards have been redrafted in order to
provide some consistency with the residential
standards in the General Residential Zone.
GCC
Building setback to side and rear boundaries has the capacity
to result in overshadowing of solar panels. Solar panels are
subsidized by the commonwealth and are a substantial
investment for private land owners. As such have we checked
that our as of right setback standards (in conjunction with
height standards) throughout the scheme are adequate to
protect the effectiveness of existing panels on existing roofs on
nearby development and that such standards allow for
consideration of impact on existing or potential solar panels
These standards have been redrafted in order to
provide some consistency with the residential
standards in the General Residential Zone.
Buildings and Works
Height
11.4.2
Buildings and Works
Setback
11.4.2
Buildings and Works
Setback
11.4.2
Buildings and Works
Setback
121
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
when assessing a discretion? Note that planting of
inappropriate trees can have the same impact. Perhaps
consideration should also be given to planning schemes
providing for planting of trees, in particular by making planting
of trees that exceed a certain height and are to be located
within a certain distance of a common boundary discretionary
in certain zones.
11.4.2
GCC
A1 To create a quality urban streetscape front setback should
be consistent, not provide for anywhere between 0 and 3m.
Also, allowing for a range provides that as of right development
can result in opportunities for entrapment. In addition, it is
considered appropriate if not desirable to have some
semiprivate space in front of buildings. As such, suggest we
provide a specific front setback e.g. 2 or 3m, with at ground
floor level, articulation in the front building facade to a max of
0.5m only to preclude opportunities for entrapment.
These standards have been redrafted in order to
provide some consistency with the residential
standards in the General Residential Zone.
GCC
P1, Desired Future Character statements actually contradict
the remaining standards, accordingly the lead in should be
changed to:
These standards have been redrafted in order to
provide some consistency with the residential
standards in the General Residential Zone.
GCC
Objective and P1(a) and (b) in most instances existing
setbacks are more than 3m, should we have an objective that
actually identifies that we want to change the streetscape from
a suburban environment to an urban environment with reduced
front setbacks and conjoined buildings or apartment blocks
providing a stronger definition to the street whilst allowing for
greater opportunities of private or semi private outdoor space
behind the buildings? What is more, with existing setbacks
These standards have been redrafted in order to
provide some consistency with the residential
standards in the General Residential Zone.
Buildings and Works
Setback
11.4.2
Buildings and Works
Setback
11.4.2
Buildings and Works
Setback
122
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
generally greater than 3m, P1(b) makes no sense and P1(b)
contradicts 11.4.9 in the Glenorchy scheme, given that it is not
possible to comply with two contradicting statements at the
same time, the lead in must be change or P1(a) must be
removed?
11.4.2
GCC
P1(c) How does a front setback 'enhance the characteristics of
the site' particularly on what is essentially relatively flat land?
We want it to contribute to the desired streetscape of 3m
setback, not to something else.
These standards have been redrafted in order to
provide some consistency with the residential
standards in the General Residential Zone.
GCC
P1(d) given that setback can vary between 0 and 3m in
accordance with acceptable solution A1, what is a 'small
variation in building alignment'?
These standards have been redrafted in order to
provide some consistency with the residential
standards in the General Residential Zone.
HCC
Need a performance criteria for security shutters.
These standards have been redrafted in order to
provide some consistency with the residential
standards in the General Residential Zone.
GCC
A1 Lead in sentence: the issues considered by this standard
deal with more than 'addressing the street', besides which,
there is no need to refer to an objective in an acceptable
solution. Suggest rewording as follows:
These standards have been redrafted in order to
provide some consistency with the residential
standards in the General Residential Zone.
Buildings and Works
Setback
11.4.2
Buildings and Works
Setback
11.4.3:
Buildings and Works
Design
11.4.3
Buildings and Works
Design
'Building design must comply with all of the following:'
11.4.3
Buildings and Works
Design
GCC
A1(a) What does 'at' the frontage mean? Also, frontage is a
defined term that means 'a boundary of a lot which abuts a
road'. It is considered that we need to encourage buildings to
front public roads, public foot ways and public open space as
well. These spaces could be summarized as 'public space'.
Suggest that (a) be changed to 'The main pedestrian entrance
123
These standards have been redrafted in order to
provide some consistency with the residential
standards in the General Residential Zone.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
must face public space and not be obscured by fencing or
walls with a transparency exceeding 30 percent'. In addition,
the term 'public space' should be defined in part 4.1 to mean
'public roads, public foot or cycle ways and public open space
such as parks, squares etc.'
11.4.3
GCC
Buildings and Works
Design
A1(b) this would allow for a solid front door and an above eye
level window, e.g. a 0.7m high strip, 5.0m long along the top of
the wall in a wall 6m long x 3m high, as such, this would not
achieve any passive surveillance at all. In addition, I don't think
we can require doors to be glazed, and this clause should also
address windows facing public ways and open space.
These standards have been redrafted in order to
provide some consistency with the residential
standards in the General Residential Zone.
Suggest a reword as follows::
'(b) Any facade at ground floor level and facing a public
road, public way or public open space must be provided
with unobstructed clear windows in accordance with all of
the following:
(i) the glazed area must be no less than 30percent of the
surface area of the ground floor level facade
(ii) the glazed area required under (i) above must be
located between 1 and 2m above the floor level of the
ground floor.
(iii) not be obscured by fencing or walls with a transparency
exceeding 30percent.
11.4.3
Buildings and Works
Design
GCC
A1 (c) The words 'avoid' and 'large expanses' are not objective.
In addition, blank walls facing neighbours are also not
acceptable. Suggest a reword perhaps as follows::
'(c) all external walls, other than boundary walls that will
124
These standards have been redrafted in order to
provide some consistency with the residential
standards in the General Residential Zone.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
directly abut boundary walls on adjacent properties, must
have articulation or other surface treatment so that no one
wall area exceeds a 30m2 rectangle without a change in
texture, articulation or window.'
11.4.3
GCC
Buildings and Works
Design
P1 Lead in sentence: This clause deals with much more than
just streetscape, besides which, there is no need to repeat the
objective. Suggest rewording as follows:
These standards have been redrafted in order to
provide some consistency with the residential
standards in the General Residential Zone.
'Building design must satisfy all of the following:'
11.4.3
GCC
P1 if the changes to A1 are agreed with, P1 will need to be
reviewed accordingly.
These standards have been redrafted in order to
provide some consistency with the residential
standards in the General Residential Zone.
GCC
Objective, it is unclear how ancillary dwellings create impact as
a result of non compliance with the standard, e.g. distance
from single dwelling or connection by a path or similar, what
sort of impact is contemplated by this objective? The
requirements about max distance, sharing of services etc are
requirements that stem from existing provisions relating to
ancillary dwellings, the intent of which seemed to be:
See comment in General – Ancillary Dwelling.
Buildings and Works
Design
11.4.4
Ancillary Dwellings
prevent a cheap way of creating (substandard) multiple
dwellings
prevent a way of circumventing the scheme to provide for
multiple dwellings when they might otherwise be prohibited
providing a way of qualifying what was meant with the term
'ancillary'
making it less attractive to have ancillary dwellings being
rented out to non relatives
125
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
None of these objectives were about reducing impact.
11.4.4
GCC
A1(c) partly repeats the definition for ancillary dwelling. This
can't be done, if a development no longer complies with the
definition of the defined term (ancillary dwelling) for that
development, than it is no longer an ancillary dwelling.
See comment in General – Ancillary Dwelling
GCC
P1 you can't relax standards required under the definition for
ancillary dwelling.
See comment in General – Ancillary Dwelling
Ancillary Dwellings
11.4.4
Ancillary Dwellings
Given the above, it is suggested that the standard be deleted
in its entirety and rely solely on the defined term for ancillary
dwelling.
11.4.5
GCC
Outdoor storage areas
Objective: the objective is too limiting dealing only with
appearance, when smell or other emissions can also be an
issue. Suggest the use of the term 'amenity' and perhaps the
term 'streetscape' (I suspect that technically streetscape is part
of amenity, even though it is not specifically included). In
addition, storage areas (e.g. for garbage bins) for multiple
dwellings can also be an issue. Suggest rewording the
objective as follows:
Agree, change to ‘amenity’
'To ensure that outdoor storage areas do not impact on
amenity or streetscape'
11.4.6:
Buildings and Works
Residential Amenity
HCC
Clause A1: How can you measure whether sunlight is provided
to rooms? Shadow diagrams show shadows but not sunlight.
Does this mean that each habitable room has to achieve
sunlight for 3 hours, or the habitable rooms in total (e.g. 1 hour
for the living room + 1 hour for the kitchen + 1 hour for the
bedroom 3 hours, but there is no sunlight the rest of the time).
126
These standards have been redrafted in order to
provide some consistency with the residential
standards in the General Residential Zone.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
11.5.1
From
GCC
Lot Design
11.5.1
Lot Design
Objective (b) suggest rewording as follows:
Regional Project Response
Agree
(b) contain building areas suitable for residential development
at densities higher than that for the General Residential Zone
and located to avoid hazards and other site restrictions
GCC
Lot Design
11.5.1
Comment or Suggestion
Objective (c) suggest rewording as follows:
Agree
(c) result in a mix of lot sizes within the zone to enable a
variety of dwelling and household types (if a developer is only
subdividing a lot into 2, he can't really provide a 'mix of lot
sizes' in that subdivision!)
GCC
P3 This clause should encourage sharing of driveways and
rear access, not require each lot to have vehicular access from
the frontage. E.g. a 6m frontage would be dominated by a 3m
wide driveway! It also encourages frontages that are
dominated by garages or vehicle parking, where if we require
parking behind the dwelling, and not make it mandatory to
have vehicle access from the frontage it will encourage shared
access lanes. We should also not be encouraging internal lots,
internal areas should be used for open space and vehicular
access. We need to encourage buildings that front public areas
and encourage development with conjoined housing and
apartments. Also, what is the min frontage for internal lots?
Suggest a reword as follows:
The primary frontage of each lot must satisfy one of the
following, :
(a) be between 6 and 10m wide if a building area is
provided demonstrating that the lots will be developed with
conjoined housing and vehicular access to lots is shared
127
Suggest rewording is not supported as it only allows
for conjoined dwellings or apartment buildings and
attempts to regulate the future design of dwellings.
This standard is only related to frontage.
Internal lots will be necessary in this zone in order for
the density objective to be achieved. A frontage
standard of 4m should be provided for internal lots.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
between a minimum of two lots and vehicular parking will
be behind the dwelling.
(b) be more than 10m wide if a building area is provided
demonstrating all of the following:
(i) the lot(s) will be developed with an apartment
building
(ii) a single vehicular access provides access to
parking behind the apartment or below the ground
floor of the apartment where the ground floor is no
more than 1m above the ngl of the footpath directly in
front of the building
(iii) all dwellings in the apartment building front a public
road, a public footway or public open space.
11.5.1
GCC
P2(a) and P5 are not desirable for areas subject to DFCS, how
should we provide for those areas? (Perhaps we should not
rezone those areas to Inner Res, rather, they should remain
General Res, along the lines that rezoning to Inner Res is not a
right, therefore they are not losing out on anything that they
previously had, and it means that there is not an expectation
that they can do more based on their zone and it means that
fewer standards need to have 'alternative provisions' to
specifically provide for these DFCS areas.
If Desired Future Character Statements (DFCS)
require specific development standards, they should
be transferred to a code. E.G. a ‘local character code’.
GCC
P1(d) suggest rewording:
Agree, this applies in each zone where this standard is
used.
Lot Design
11.5.2
Roads
"(d) an acceptable level of access, safety, convenience and
legibility is provided through a consistent road function
hierarchy;" (the term road function hierarchy needs to be
qualified with the word ‘consistent’)
128
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
11.5.2
From
GCC
Roads
11.5.3
GCC
P1(d) suggest rewording to:
"(d) convenient access to local shops, community facilities,
public open space and public transport routes is provided;" (the
term 'accessibility' I think is generally used to mean access for
people with a disability, what we are looking for here is
‘convenient access’)
GCC
Ways and POS
11.5.3
P1(f) suggest that it be amended as follows:
“(f) unless in accordance with 11.5.1P4 internal lots must not
be created;” (note that I have suggested changes to P4 to
allow for lots that have vehicular access via a ROW or fee
simple strip frontage, provided the future dwellings front public
space. Where such lots front public open space or cycle ways
etc, they are technically internal lots, yet they are desirable
provided we ensure passive surveillance and pedestrian
access from that open space. Note that this objective is
consistent with Liveable Neighbourhoods in WA)
Ways and POS
11.5.3
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Not agree, flexibility for the creation of internal lots will
be necessary in this zone in order for the density
objective to be achieved.
Agree, this applies in other zones where this standard
is used.
Agree, reword as suggested.
P1(e) suggest rewording to:
(e) new ways are designed so that adequate passive
surveillance will be provided from development on
neighbouring land and/or public roads as appropriate;
('providing opportunity' for passive surveillance is no guarantee
that it will be provided, wording it this way will mean that the
proposal plan will need to demonstrate how it will be achieved,
e.g. providing building areas and covenants [e.g. by requiring
windows and low or translucent fencing] on adjoining lots)
GCC
P1 the design of footways is also important in providing a safe
environment, suggest inclusion of an additional clause,
129
Agree, add additional clause, this also applies in other
zones where this standard is used.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Ways and POS
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
perhaps along the lines of:
“(i) new or extension to existing ways must be designed to
minimise opportunities for entrapment or other criminal
behaviour having regard to, but not limited to the following;
a. Width of the way
b. Length of the way
c. Landscaping within the way
d. Lighting
e. Provision of opportunities for ‘loitering’
f. Shape of the way (avoid bends or corners or other
opportunities for concealment)”
11.5.4
HCC
Services
11.5.4 - Connected is not equal to serviced. A suitable area for
development must be able to be serviced via gravity by
Council’s stormwater system and reticulated sewer, and the
potable water supply to have adequate pressure for domestic
and fire-fighting purposes in the General Residential Zone.
Lots which require pumps or onsite disposal in general
residential (lot sizes 450-1000m2) should not be created.
Explanation:
The details for water and sewer serving are now
address via TasWater and its regulatory regime and do
not need to be covered under LUPAA planning
schemes.
It is enough for ‘planning’ to know that new lots will be
connected within the Inner Residential Zone - as per
the State’s purpose statement for this zone. Lots that
would require onsite wastewater treatment are not to
be created in the Inner Residential Zone.
Stormwater, however, is Councils responsibility. It is
agreed A3 should refer to a stormwater system able to
service the Building Area (refer 10.6.1) by gravity.
11.5.4
GCC
A1 to P3 Is it sufficient to require 'connection to services'? For
example, if a proposal includes a connection to existing
130
Infrastructure capacity is an issue adequately covered
by the relevant servicing authorities.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Services
11.5.4
Services
Regional Project Response
services, but the existing services have insufficient capacity to
cater for the increased load, will these standards provide the
ability to require upgrading of those existing (on or of-site)
services? Suggest that the standards be amended/added to,
such that the existing infrastructure be of sufficient capacity to
cater for the proposed development and where capacity is
insufficient (on or of-site) the proposal must include the
upgrading of that infrastructure to provide the required
capacity. These issues will likely apply in other zones.
GCC
A1 to P3 If upgrading of services is required on other land (e.g.
increase the size of a storm water main on adjoining or non
adjoining privately owned land), what is the status of such an
upgrade? The scheme should make it explicit that the
upgrading of sewer pipes etc. on other land should be
classified as 'minor utility', even where the reason for the
upgrade may be to service a discretionary unit development
etc. and it should not become discretionary, to avoid objections
against upgrading of infrastructure that would otherwise be
NPR and in any event effected property owners have rights
under other legislation in relation to easements etc.
The provision of reticulated water, sewerage and storm
water is exempt under clause 6.2.2.
GCC
How do A4 and P4 interact with E6..7.1 in the Parking and
access code. Apart from requiring access to a road, it deals
with the same issue: number of accesses, yet the standards
are not identical. Should the number of accesses required for
subdivisions be considered as part of the Parking and Access
Code? Or should number of access remain in both the Code
for development other than subdivision and in subdivision
clauses in all individual zones, but should the wording be
The Parking and Access Code applies to all
development including subdivision. Development that
does not result in material change (10% increase in
vehicle use) is exempt. It is considered that the
Parking and Access Code should apply to all
subdivision irrespective of material change as the
number of access points and access design is relevant
to all subdivision. The standard should require the
Services
11.5.4
Comment or Suggestion
131
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
11.5.4
From
provision of 1 access point for new lots. The
subdivision access standard should be removed from
all zones where it is used.
GCC
A4 What if the existing road infrastructure is insufficient, either
at the point of access, or down the road (as was the case in
the proposed Upper Hilton road subdivision, where the
subdivision was refused, because the (only) road to the site
had insufficient capacity and the intersection of the Brooker
Highway also had insufficient capacity to cater for the
increased load that would be the result of the proposed
subdivision. Again the acceptable solution needs to be clear
that the capacity of existing road infrastructure is capable of
handling increased load (not sure how you could do this as an
acceptable solution, e.g., who is the judge of that and what
definitive standards could be applied?)
The regional scheme provisions do not address the
need for road upgrades outside of a development site.
If a Planning Authority has identified a need in a
specific area they should be included as local
provisions in a Specific Area Plan. Some of the issues
raised will be addressed in the proposed State Road
and Rail Asset Code.
GCC
We should be encouraging conjoined housing and apartment
buildings in this zone, not units. Whilst technically both
apartment buildings and conjoined housing are multiple
dwellings, developers and planners often use the term 'multiple
dwelling' as meaning 'units' and units in Tasmania 99% of the
time involve freestanding dwellings where only one dwelling
addresses a public road. This is not a typology we should
encourage or even provide for in the inner residential zone.
Suggest that the last qualification, 'Lots designated on title for
multiple dwelling use and development' be changed to 'Lots
designated on title for apartments, conjoined housing etc.'
Not agree, multiple dwellings is the term used in the
Template.
GCC
In addition, Melbourne examples show that terrace housing
with rear vehicular access can be achieved with a min lot size
Suggest allow for a variation of the 200m for terrace
housing in 11.5.1 P1.
Lot size requirements
Table 11.1
Regional Project Response
identical e.g., in the code many more considerations are
involved in whether or not to allow more than 1 access?
Services
Table 11.1
Comment or Suggestion
132
2
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Lot size requirements
Table 11.1
GCC
Ordinary lots, what is an 'ordinary' lot? Should that term be
changed to 'lots for single dwellings' or move it last and call it
'all other lots'.
Agree, move it last and call it 'all other lots'.
GCC
Maximum lot size should be provided for balance lots. We
provide max lots sizes in Gen Res zone, they should be
applied here. Suggest the removal of 'not including balance
lots' in the "maximum Lot Size' box.
Not agree, it is not clear why a maximum lot size would
be applied to a balance lot. It is intended that the
residential density standards will require that
development is designed or located to make provision
for future development on larger lots.
GCC
In Glenorchy the Inner Res zone includes some areas that are
subject to Desired Future Character Statements, is it
appropriate/allowable for GCC to provide an additional criteria
that requires a larger lot size for areas that are subject to
DFCS? The statement would be along the lines of: “If a lot is
subject to a DFCS and irrespective of the above”. And then
provide increased min lot size.
If Desired Future Character Statements (DFCS)
require specific development standards, it is suggested
that they should be transferred to a code. E.G. a ‘local
character code’.
Lot size requirements
Table 11.1
Regional Project Response
of 180m2. Should we reduce the min size to 180m2?
Lot size requirements
Table 11.1
Comment or Suggestion
Lot size requirements
12.0 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE
12.1.1
Zone Purpose Statements
GCC
The development standards have objectives such as
contributing positively to the landscape, not impacting on
residential amenity etc. Given that it is the intention that
standards should only apply to things that will further the zone
purpose and that zone purpose statements provide the
ultimate measure for discretionary assessments, these zone
purpose statements should be added to so that every standard
can be justified in terms of complying with the zone purpose.
This would apply to all zone purpose statements in all zones.
133
Clause 8.10.2 of the Template provides for
consideration of the zone purpose but only in regard to
discretionary use, not development.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
12.2
From
Natural and cultural values management: It is NPR, does it
need a qualification, e.g. without a qualification setting up a
devil breeding and isolation facility (use of land to protect
species) or undertaking major earth works like dredging the
mouth of a river (to manage an ecological system) would be
NPR. The first example was subject to a discretionary DA in
Collinsvale and was subject to major opposition through the
DA process and the second example was subject to a DA in
Glamorgan Spring Bay Council and had 42 representations.
It is unlikely that the Template intended for this use
class to apply to the examples given. The TPC might
like to consider some clarification. If planning
authorities think this is going to be an issue for them a
local qualification should be added. The mouth of a
river should not be zoned Low Density Residential.
GCC
Emergency services: Emergency facilities can be minor or
major facilities. is it appropriate to have all emergency services
discretionary in all residential zones and to rely on use
standards to ensure amenity, or should there be a qualification
that limits the size or use of potential emergency services
facilities in residential zones, e.g. ok to have a local fire
volunteer brigade with max floor area of xm2, but prohibited to
have a fire station manned with permanent staff, such as the
one on Goodwood Road in Goodwood?
Discretionary uses will be accessed against the zone
purpose statements. In the residential zones these
require the protection of residential amenity.
GCC
Ancillary Dwelling: An ancillary dwelling is part of the
definition for a dwelling, as such can we distinguish between a
dwelling without an ancillary dwelling and a single dwelling with
an ancillary dwelling? If we can, than the NPR qualification for
Residential use class needs to state 'Single dwelling not
including an ancillary dwelling' and the P qualification should
be reworded Single dwelling including an ancillary dwelling'. If
we can't distinguish between the two, than we should delete
the Ancillary dwelling qualification for P use Residential.
Besides this, why make it a P use, what sorts of conditions
See general comment – Ancillary Dwelling
Use Table
12.2
Use Table
Regional Project Response
GCC
Use Table
12.2
Comment or Suggestion
134
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
would we have a right to apply that can't be addressed by
having it NPR? Note, I have not checked if this issue applies to
other (residential) zones. Note, if we can't distinguish between
single dwellings and ancillary dwellings and we think we should
be able to, than we should lobby the TPC to have the definition
for single dwellings changed.
12.2
GCC
Utilities: Do we really think that all non minor utilities should
be 'D' e.g. a sewer treatment plant, a major substation etc
would all be discretionary in this residential zone, I suspect it is
inappropriate to rely on development and use standards only to
control such potentially major facilities. Note that this could be
an issue in other residential zones as well.
Discretionary uses will be accessed against the zone
purpose statements. In the residential zones these
require the protection of residential amenity.
P56
Are there any front fencing provisions for the zone? The
performance criteria for all front fencing regardless of zone
should include a low 1m fence height or require a minimum
80% transparency either side of a driveway, to ensure sight
lines and pedestrian safety. The current planning directive 4
clearly fails to protect pedestrians in particular children, by not
making a lower fence height or require a minimum 80%
transparency on either side of the driveway, mandatory
Standards for fencing were not drafted at the time of
exhibition. They have now been included based on the
Residential Standards Planning Directive. Fencing
adjacent to a driveway has not been addressed in that
Planning Directive.
CHC
P1(d) to be removed. Council does not believe it is necessary
to have a maximum building height.
This is a general issue.
P1- And/or required - it would be impossible to achieve (a) (c)
and (e). 'Landscape' is undefined and very open to
interpretation in this context.
These provisions have been redrafted to be consistent
with the Planning Directive for residential development
in the General Residential Zone.
Use Table
12.4
Development Standards
12.4.1:
Building Height:
Refer General Comments section.
Absolute height limit
12.4.2
Setback P1 &P2
P14
P2 - (b)(i) privacy should use the PD4 9m rule or specify
135
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
another rather than leaving it open to interpretation.
12.4.2
P54
Setback
It is not appropriate to apply the 100m setback from the Rural
Resource and Environmental Management Zones to existing
lots in the Low Density Residential Zone that adjoin those
zones. It will make most new buildings in the LDR Zone
discretionary where the zone adjoins the RR or EM Zones.
Agree.
Remove Low Density Residential Zone from this
provision. This zone is more similar to the General
Residential Zone (in the majority of circumstances
where it is found) than the Rural Living Zone.
In the case of the RR Zone it would be better to have any
buffer to protect residential amenity on the land zoned RR.
Given the size of many lots in the LDR Zone the 40m setback
specified in P3(b) would effectively prohibit any new buildings.
An example of this is the property at 321 Bronte Lagoon Road.
The whole of the lot is within the 100m setback from the RR
Zone and the EM Zone (Bronte Lagoon). Half of the lot is also
covered by the Waterway and Coastal Protection Overlay.
Most of the lot is also within the 40m P3 setback. Any
extension of the existing building on that lot would be
prohibited. It is also considered that the 100m setback from the
EM Zone should not be applied where that zone covers water
such as Bronte Lagoon. The setbacks in the Waterway and
Coastal Protection Overlay should be sufficient to protect
waterway values.
12.4.3
Design
GCC
A1 (c) the phrase 'is not on a skyline or ridgeline' is not
objective, how does one measure when it is or is not on a
skyline? If the skyline is for example the highest point on a
ridge, than a building one meter to the side of that ridge means
that a person is not 'building on the skyline', yet the effect,
when seen from surrounding area will be as if the building does
sit on the skyline. If the phrase was changed to state 'so it
136
These standards have been redrafted in order to
provide some consistency with the residential
standards in the General Residential Zone.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
does not project above the skyline' still leaves the question of
from where that projection is seen or does it mean that if the
physical skyline is at 100mAHD, then the roof must not exceed
100mAHD? If so, than the building, depending on from where it
is viewed, will still appear to project above the skyline. Also,
the skyline is never horizontal, as such what is the actual
height we refer to? I am not sure what would be the best way
to express this, but as proposed it is not measurable.
12.4.3
GCC
P1(a)(i) This clause uses the term 'sites' as meaning location
within a sit: "there are no other sites suitable for development
due to access difficulties or excessive slope".
These standards have been redrafted in order to
provide some consistency with the residential
standards in the General Residential Zone.
GCC
The term 'site' is in fact defined in 4.1 as 'means the lot or lots
on which a use or development is located or proposed to be
located'.
These standards have been redrafted in order to
provide some consistency with the residential
standards in the General Residential Zone.
GCC
The term 'lot' is defined by 4.1 as 'means a piece or parcel of
land in respect of which there is only one title other than a lot
within the meaning of the Strata Titles Act 1998.'.
These standards have been redrafted in order to
provide some consistency with the residential
standards in the General Residential Zone.
Design
12.4.3
Design
12.4.3
Design
As such, the term site means a title and clause A1(a)(i) does
not make sense.
There are two issues that arise from this:
(a) Drafting guideline 3.2.4.4(a) states that ' Wording used for
the same thing, purpose or function in different parts of the
planning scheme must be precisely the same. '. Given that the
template should not allow the use of both the terms 'lot' and
'site' when they mean the same. Suggest that the State be
asked to amend 4.1, by deleting the term 'site' and that all
schemes be reviewed and corrected where the term 'site' is
137
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
used when it should be 'lot'.
(b) If (a) above is agreed to, then the use of the word 'site' can
remain in P1(a)(i), if not than another term must be provided. If
the term 'site' is able to remain as intended by this clause than
consideration should be given to providing a new definition for
the term 'site' in 4.1, e.g. along the lines of 'means the location
within a lot or lots where development and or use may take
place'. if this is done, than all schemes need to be checked to
ensure that where the term 'site' is used, it means the same as
what is proposed by the new definition.
12.4.3
GCC
P1(c) Remove the 'd' from the first occurrence of the word
'and'.
These standards have been redrafted in order to
provide some consistency with the residential
standards in the General Residential Zone.
GCC
P1(c)(ii) the expression 'the minimum necessary to provide for
........... associated bushfire protection measures' is not
measurable, under the building regulations the distance
required to be cleared can vary depending on the construction
standard, in that sense, what does necessary mean? e.g.
could it be required to increase the construction standard for
example to be to BAL level 'FLAME Zone', which requires little
if any clearing beyond the construction f the building itself?
Suggest that this clause be amended to include reference to a
specific BAL level construction standard and associated
clearance requirement. If the latter, E1.6.2.1 specifies BAL 19,
should it be quoted in this standard? E.g. the extent of clearing
is the minimum necessary to provide for buildings, associated
works and associated bushfire protection measures required
by BAL 19. Note, if BAL 19 is quoted in this standard, than the
These standards have been redrafted in order to
provide some consistency with the residential
standards in the General Residential Zone.
Design
12.4.3
Design
138
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
definition for it will need to be moved to 4.1, from the Bushfire
Code. This raises a potential issue that not all scheme will use
this term outside of the code and therefore it may not be
appropriate to move the definition for all schemes.
GCC
P1 (c) Should it include a provision that the clearing not result
in de-stabilisation of the site? (e.g. development on dunes or
other soils that have stability issues need vegetation to remain
stable)
These standards have been redrafted in order to
provide some consistency with the residential
standards in the General Residential Zone.
12.4.3 Al(c)/Pl(c)
P14
A1 'any' would be better worded as 'one or more of', (c)
references two issues and should be split. Reference to 'native
vegetation' which includes grasses may have a substantial
impact under (c) whereby large portions of the lot may be
quarantined from development because of native grasses (e.g.
Droughty Point). 'Skyline' under PI should be defined as it
depends on distance.
These standards have been redrafted in order to
provide some consistency with the residential
standards in the General Residential Zone.
12.5.1
CHC
Suggest that the separation distances only apply from land
zoned Significant Agricultural and not from land zoned Rural
Resource. The current restrictions may mean that some land
in the shack areas will not be able to achieve the setback from
the Rural Resource zone and as such a habitable building
would be prohibited.
It is not so much that a habitable building would be
prohibited; it is that the creation of a lot that does not
have a compliantly located building area would be
prohibited. The subdivision provisions endeavour to set
up buffers at the residential – rural interface, at the
time of subdivision or residential lots. The provisions
would not allow the creation of new lots on which a
habitable building is prohibited.
12.4.3
Design
Lot Design
The comment, however, raises the question of
absolute minimum allowable setbacks on existing lots
– refer General Comments section.
12.5.1
GCC
A1, should the exception be mentioned first? E.g. 'Except if for
139
Not considered necessary, approach used is
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Lot Design
12.5.1
consistent with PD4 drafting.
P14
A2 does not specify the internal rectangle size. (e)(i) the 100m
has no function and is inadequate for both noise and spray
drift, (f) is impractical and should be deleted.
Two options are provided for the internal rectangle size
in (g), Planning Authorities are to retain the desired
option and delete the other. It is proposed that the
separation distances from other zones be removed
from this zone given the allowable lot sizes.
P94
Firstly, this clause is poorly drafted and ambiguous. P4 (a)
requires access from an existing road. It is not clear whether
each lot must access an existing road (in which any
subdivision of new greenfield is rendered prohibited), or
whether the proposed access road must at some point connect
to an existing access road, providing “access” from a road
existing prior to the subdivision, in which case it renders the
clause a nonsense, as all roads at some point connect to an
existing road. In any event, there seems little merit in this
provision. The outcome of this clause is that no existing
internal lot can be subdivided without being discretionary. We
do not argue that the discretion per se is unreasonable;
however, we would like to question the intent of the
performance criteria of the clause, since this is a clause which
is reoccurring in several of the residential zones. Arguably,
there is ambiguity in relation to the application of access within
the performance criteria. It is unclear whether the criteria are in
relation to the one and same access, ‘the access’ or if several
accesses can be applied in order to demonstrate compliance
with the performance standards.
Agree, review drafting of this clause in all residential
zones.
P14
These are all matters for condition. P2 is implicit due to the
Review drafting of clause, footnotes are provided for
Lot Design
12.5.4 Services
Regional Project Response
public open space, a riparian or littoral reserve or utilities, the
size of each lot must be in accordance with the following:'
Lot Design
12.5.1
Comment or Suggestion
140
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
minimum lot size. Footnote format to clauses is unnecessarily
complicated.
explanatory purposes only.
GCC
Suggest to remove 's' from 'enhances', as follows: To facilitate
passive recreational uses that enhance pedestrian, cycling and
horse trail linkages.'
Agree
GCC
Resource processing: why restrict it to a winery? E.g. a cherry
orchard might make schnapps, an organic vegetable market
garden might make pies, an alpaca stud might process their
fleeces etc. Suggest that we ensure sufficient standards apply
and then not restrict it to a particular defined use only.
Agree, provide for similar activities.
P4
Delete ‘only a veterinary surgery’ as other professional
services are provided from a home based office.
No change required as a home occupation is exempt
and a home based business is no permit required.
P29
Community living, retirement village, lifestyle village should be
discretionary in this zone.
Such higher density forms of residential development
are inconsistent with the zone purpose. If an area is
considered suitable for such forms of residential
development a more appropriate zone should be used.
GCC
P1(a; The term 'landscape' presumably relates to 'landscape
character'? If so, add the term 'character'
Agree
13.0 RURAL LIVING ZONE
13.1
Zone Purpose Statements
13.2
Use Table
13.2
Use Table
13.2
Use Table
13.4.1
Building Height
And
(a) provides two options, if there are any DFCS's, then the
whole clause should apply, if there are no DFCS's in the zone,
then only the last part of the sentence should be shown.
Suggest that there be two mandatory regional clauses, where
141
Agree
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
a planning authority may unlink one or the other:
(a) be consistent with any Desired Future Character
Statements provided for the area or, if no such statements are
provided, have regard to the landscape character of the area;
or
(a) have regard to the landscape character of the area;
The second suggestion applies to other standards in this zone
and possibly in other zones.
13.4.1
P1(b)(ii) visual impact should not be limited to viewing from
adjoining properties only, e.g. castle at Dunalley. Also, is there
any need to refer to 'bulk and height', or is referring to two
elements only restricting the matters that may be considered?
E.g. colour, setback, screening, topography etc. Suggest
changing it to: '(ii) visual impact when viewed from outside of
the property.' This may apply to other height clauses.
Not agree, in this zone where the intent is to provide
for residential use, it is appropriate to consider the
impacts on adjoining properties rather than the wider
landscape.
GCC
Objective: What standard provides for minimising impact on
Environmental Management Zone? Was it the intention to
provide an additional standard that provided an increased
setback from that zone, to ensure that no bushfire hazard
management would ever be able to be required on adjoining
EM land? If so, the current standards do not provide for that.
The setback (A4) from that zone is sufficient to protect
its environmental values.
GCC
P1(b) 'as viewed from the road', is that intended to mean the
same as 'streetscape' ? (note, 'streetscape' is a defined term )
If so, in accordance with drafting guideline 3.2.4.4(a) use that
term, suggest rewording it to:
Agree, change as suggested.
GCC
Building Height
13.4.2
Setback
13.4.2
Setback
'(b) minimise adverse impact on the streetscape;'
142
The standard relates to height, not colour, setbacks,
etc.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
13.4.2
From
GCC
Setback
Comment or Suggestion
P1 and P2 In Collinsvale there are existing dwellings and
outbuildings within a few meters of the road or within 10m of
side or rear boundaries, the absolute min front and side
setback needs to provide for them. Suggest an addition to
P1(e) and P2(c):
Regional Project Response
Agree, see general comments on absolute setback
limits.
'unless it involves additions or alterations to a building that
existed at the time of this scheme coming into effect.'
13.4.2
P36
This submission relates to front setback standards in Rural
Living Zone. It is submitted that impact on biodiversity and
indeed positive environmental benefits should be a reason to
exercise (unfettered) discretion.
It is up to each Council to determine the actual setback
as it is a ‘regional optional’ provision. Minimising loss
of native vegetation within the front setback is a matter
addressed in the performance criteria.
HCC
Re: A2 AS2700: 2011 Colour Standards for General Purposes
does not specify dark toned colours. Paint manufacturers do
specify the light reflectance value of their colours so suggest
this standard be worded as follows:
See General Comments section.
Setback
13.4.3
Buildings and works - design
Exterior building surfaces must be coloured using colours with
a light reflectance value not greater than 40 percent.
This standard should replace all of the acceptable solutions
where AS2700 is mentioned.
13.4.3
CHC
Buildings and works - design
13.4.3
Buildings and works - design
GCC
P3(d) to be removed. Council does not believe it is necessary
to have a maximum building height.
Assume this refers to maximum gross floor area.
If we would like to create greater consistency between
standards within zones, between zones and between schemes
in the region and across the state, than suggest that standards
The STRPP has no time or resources to do this.
143
Agree delete (d) the other standards are sufficient.
Also applies in other zones where this standard is
used.
In any case, it should be done once, and across the
whole State.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
not be grouped like these are. Ungrouping will also mean that
we can 'fine tune' the 'enquire' module more, e.g. if a proposal
does not involve fill or excavation, than proposed standard 4
will not come up in the result. E.g. suggest that we create 4
individual standards:
(1) Location of buildings and works
Regional Project Response
This is an improvement that will have to wait until the
next iteration of planning reform, which ought to take
the three regional models and elevate much of the
content to State level.
This will require a significant level of State technical
resourcing and political will.
(2) External building materials
(3) Gross Floor area
(4) Fill and excavation works
This is a suggested approach to be applied throughout the
ordinance including subdivision standards.
13.4.3
Buildings and works - design
GCC
A1 and P1 are we happy to allow a variation from a building
area provided on a title? Given that that would constitute a
variation to a covenant, I don't know that planning could do
that? (or would it require special wording of a covenant?).
Nor do I know that we want to allow for that. Building areas will
only ever be placed on a title if there is a specific need to do so
(and in any event, building areas can be very large, so as to
allow the max possible options for a future developer), as such
suggest that A1(a) be reworded as follows:
'Buildings and works must be located within a building area if
provided on the title, where no building area is provided, the
location of buildings and works must comply with any of the
following:
(a) be an addition or alteration to an existing building.
(c) be located on a site that does not require the clearing of
144
Variation is an appropriate option, titles can be
amended.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
native vegetation and is not on a skyline or ridgeline.'
A similar change should be made to P1.
13.4.3
GCC
Buildings and works - design
P1(c)(i) This statement only allows for variation due to access
difficulties or excessive slope. It may be conceivable that there
are other site constraints that have not been thought of.
Suggest rewording along the lines of:
Agree, change as suggested.
'(i) there are no sites clear of native vegetation and clear of
other significant site constraints such as access difficulties or
excessive slope;'
13.4.3
GCC
A3 How does this standard interact with 13.4.4, which also
deals with floor area, but in that case only with floor area for
outbuildings?
A3 applies to all buildings including outbuildings ie the
combined area of a dwelling and outbuildings must be
2
no more than 375m . Under 13.4.4 outbuildings must
2
have a floor area no more than 100m .
GCC
A3 does the gross floor area relate to the gross floor area of all
buildings or the gross floor are per building?
Agree, insert ‘combined’ before ‘gross floor area’.
Buildings and works - design
13.4.3
Buildings and works - design
Suggest a change to the wording to clarify the intention.
13.4.3
Buildings and works - design
GCC
P3 is there any need to provide an absolute upper limit, or is
this a way to also control say visitor accommodation units etc
(if it applies to total gross floor area for the site, as opposed to
gross floor are per building?) If it applies to gross floor area per
site, can it reasonably allow for a dwelling a winery and
ordinary outbuildings and maybe a visitor accommodation
cabin, all of which could be reasonable?
Would it be better expressed as a percentage of the site area,
e.g. if someone has a larger lot they can have comparatively a
larger gross floor area? (note we don't have an absolute cap at
145
Agree, remove absolute upper limit.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
the moment and I am unsure that it has created unacceptable
scenarios to date?)
13.4.3
GCC
A4, what does 'building support purposes' mean? The term
building includes fences etc...... This would mean that you
could as an acceptable solution, construct a fence on top of fill
exceeding 1m?
‘Building support purposes’ is intended to allow for
building foundations, reword to clarify.
GCC
A4 How does this interact with Limited exemption 6.4.2, which
exempts from requiring approval the construction or demolition
of a retaining wall set back more than 1.5m from a boundary
and which retains a difference in ground level of less than 1m?
6.4.2 (c) deals with retaining walls, A4 deals with fill
and excavation.
GCC
P4(a) refers to 'visual amenity' of the area, is that the same as
'landscape character', which is the term used elsewhere? If so,
use that term, in accordance with drafting guideline 3.2.4.4.(a),
which requires the use of the same term if the same meaning
is meant.
Agree, change as suggested.
GCC
A1 the term outbuilding is defined, accordingly the term
'outbuildings' should come up with a pop up box for the
definition.
CMS issue.
GCC
Why contemplate floor area in two different standards, 13.4.3
A3 and this standard?
See comments re these standards above.
Buildings and works - design
13.4.3
Buildings and works - design
13.4.3
Buildings and works - design
13.4.4
Buildings and works outbuildings
13.4.4
Buildings and works outbuildings
13.4.4
Buildings and works outbuildings
Why relate this to 'floor area' as opposed to 'gross floor area',
which is a defined term?
GCC
What use class does an 'outbuilding' come under? The
definition for 'outbuilding' is:
'a non-habitable detached building of Class 10a of the Building
146
This is a Template issue, TPC to consider.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Code of Australia and includes a garage, carport or shed'
The BCA defines a 10a building as 'a non-habitable building
being a private garage, carport, shed or the like'. The term
'private garage' is defined by the BCA as (a) any garage
associated with a Class 1 building or (b) any single storey of a
building of another Class containing not more than 3 vehicle
spaces, if there is only one such storey in the building; or (c)
any separate single storey garage associated with another
building where such garage contains not more than 3 vehicle
spaces.'
The BCA definition and the Template definitions contradict
each other in so far as that one is detached, the other is not
necessarily so and one can be attached, the other can't.
Furthermore, the BCA only for a Private garage distinguishes
that an outbuilding is for private use, as opposed to any other
use (e.g. commercial, industrial etc). The planning schemes on
the other hand have to classify an outbuilding with a use class,
the use class 'residential' does not adequately cater for it,
particularly where a person proposes to build a shed on vacant
land (this is in some current schemes addressed by using the
defined use 'Miscellaneous'. Where a shed is built as part of
say an industrial use, it would be similarly classified and should
not be referred to as an 'outbuilding', because impacts from the
use of the 'shed' must be considered from planning (as
opposed to construction) point of view.
The following suggestions are made:
(1) the use class 'residential' should be changed to include
'outbuildings'
147
Regional Project Response
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
(2) the term 'outbuilding' should be redefined without reference
to the BCA and to include outbuildings on vacant land:
'means a non-habitable detached building that may include a
garage, carport or shed, where it is associated with the use of
a single dwelling or is used for private noncommercial/industrial purposes only'. Both suggestions would
require amendment to State provisions.
13.5.1
P63
While we support the ambition of limiting the use of internal lots
in subdivision design we see no benefit in their complete
prohibition. The likely result of a redesign of the subdivision for
the land appears to be a reduction in lot yield and an increase
in road length the result is less economic use of land and
services than what could otherwise be achieved. Although this
impacts upon the initial developer in the short term, the long
term costs of these inefficiencies are born by the community
through road and water authorities. It is submitted that a more
reasonable approach would be to utilise provisions similar to
those in relation to the creation of cul-de-sacs and terminating
roads; that they are "kept to an absolute minimum".
Agree, remove absolute prohibition where the road is
not existing prior to the application for subdivision.
P4
A2(f) insert: is a minimum of 30x30m
Agree
A4 R1 footnotes – Internal lots are appropriate, they allow for
economical subdivision of land and privacy for residents
Internal lots are possible under P4. See comment
above.
Objects to the limitations on internal lots, it will create large
areas of neglected wasteland.
See comments above
Lot Design
13.5.1
Lot Design
13.5.1
Lot Design
P71
148
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
13.5.1
From
P4is far too restrictive with the total number of internal access
strips to be alongside being restricted to just two. Again, in
some instances this is the only feasible way to develop a site
which over years has been set aside specifically for this future
purpose. We can certainly appreciate it is not a preferred
approach to access but far more discretion should be permitted
within P4 for each case to be taken on its merits.
Agree, provide some flexibility to consider on merits,
remove prohibition on more than 2 adjacent strips.
P30
How has the maximum 1 in 8 allowable gradient for the 30m x
30m building area at 13.5.1 been determined. What is the
rationale for application of the gradient. How will it be
measured (average over area, maximum over area, etc).
Review gradient figure in light of revised Landslide
Code. The gradient would be measured across the
extent of the 30m wide building area resulting in an
average gradient across this area.
P71
The maximum gradient should be 1 in 5.
See comment above.
P4
Make P1 the acceptable solution and remove (f).
Not supported, P1 contains subjective elements that
are not appropriate as acceptable solutions.
P4
The public open space contribution should be affixed fee
regardless of location or lot size to save on valuation costs.
Not supported, public open space contributions are
regulated under the LGBMP Act 1993.
Residential Use Class Insert 'no more than 1 non resident
worker/employee, no more than 1 commercial vehicle or a floor
area no more than 30 m2' to be consistent with residential
zones
Not agree.
Lot Design
13.5.1
Regional Project Response
P82
Lot Design
13.5.1
Comment or Suggestion
Lot Design
13.5.2
Roads
13.5.3
Ways and Public Open Space
14.0 ENVIRONMENTAL LIVING ZONE
14.2
Use Table
HCC
In the larger-lot residential zones this restriction is not
needed as a regional standard.
The restrictions on the definition of home based
business are sufficient.
(Currently, this extra restriction on home based
149
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
business only exists in Inner Residential, General
Residential and Urban Mixed Use.)
14.2
KC
Use Table
Resource development should only be allowed on existing
cleared land – clearing for this use class in this zone is not
appropriate.
Explanation:
Resource development is an optional inclusion in the
Use Table for this zone, as is any local qualifications.
KC to delete or modify as it determines.
14.2
P14
The qualification on Educational and Occasional Care is
unnecessary and requires the incorporation of a separate act
into the planning scheme. The licensing of child care facilities
should not require regulation by the planning scheme.
The reference to a license under the Child Care Act
2001 is used to define what home based child care is,
it does not incorporate the Act into the planning
scheme. No change required.
KC
P1 (a) focuses on landscape values where there are no DFCS
but does not refer to environmental values.
Not agree.
As this is the Environmental Living Zone, environmental values
should be included in this standard.
If the Biodiversity Code applies to the area, then this
also covers this issue.
P1 (d) Only refers to minimising impacts on native vegetation
where such vegetation makes a contribution to the landscape
as viewed from the road.
Not agree.
Use Table
14.4.2 P1
Development standards.
Setback from frontage
14.4.2 P1
KC
Development standards.
Setback from frontage
The intent of this standard should be to minimise impacts on
environmental values broadly not just maintain native
vegetation for visual amenity (which is already covered by (b).
Need to deal with environmental values more broadly.
14.4.2 P2
Development standards.
KC
P2 (a) The same concerns with including environmental values
in this standard for side and rear setback applied.
Setback from side and rear.
14.4.3 A1/P1 covers this issue.
14.4.3 A1/P1 covers this issue.
If the Biodiversity Code applies to the area, then this
also covers this issue.
Not agree.
14.4.3 A1/P1 covers this issue.
If the Biodiversity Code applies to the area, then this
also covers this issue.
150
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
14.4.3
From
KC
Development standards.
Comment or Suggestion
Only refers to being clear of native vegetation rather than
environmental values.
As the zone purpose is broader than native vegetation values,
this standard should be amended to refer to environmental
values.
Design
Recommend A1 (a) to read:
located within an area clear of environmental values and not
located on a skyline or ridgeline’
Regional Project Response
Not agree.
If the Biodiversity Code applies to the area, (which
would likely be the case for most of this zone), then
this covers this issue.
The zone standards need to be written in a way that
provides for an Acceptable Solution to be written. If this
standard referred to ‘environmental values’ as
suggested, this would not be possible.
The suggested A1 (a) is too ill-defined to meet the test
for being an Acceptable Solution.
14.4.3
P14
A1 'any' would be better worded as 'one or more of', (c)
references two issues and should be split. Reference to 'native
vegetation' which includes grasses may have a substantial
impact under (c) whereby large portions of the lot may be
quarantined from development because of native grasses (e.g.
Droughty Point). 'Skyline' under PI should be defined as it
depends on distance. A2 should not refer to AS2700
(incorporated document) and is not desirable in all instances.
Suggest reference to use of colour palette to blend with colours
in the existing on the site.
Agree in part, clause to be reviewed. It is difficult to
define skyline as it does vary from different viewing
points.
KC
P2 enables subdivision involving clearance of native
vegetation, which is inappropriate in Kingborough due to the
extensive use of the ELZ zone across lots entirely covered by
native vegetation.
Query: KC are using the zone to apply to titles entirely
covered by native vegetation, but want a subdivision
provisions that prohibits a new lot if it would require
clearing for a house site?. This would render
subdivision of such titles always prohibited. Perhaps
the Environmental Management Zone would be more
‘honest and up front’ for these titles?
Design
14.5.1
Subdivision
Lot Design
This zoning has been applied on the basis that subdivision in
the ELZ is only appropriate where the design of each lot is
capable of containing a building envelope clear of all hazards
151
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
and environmental values.
It is not appropriate to zone these EMZ as residential
development is prohibited in this zone (which is too restrictive).
It is also not appropriate to zone them Rural Resource simply
to prevent subdivision. This issue may also exist for other
Councils and if so, an additional regional optional provision
should be included. If not, the provision could be local to
Kingborough.
Recommend new subclause:
(g) is located clear of all hazards and environmental values.
14.5.1
Whilst land in this zone would likely be covered by the
Biodiversity Code and this would do this, it is possible
that land may not be covered by the code (for those
Councils applying the Biodiversity Code by an overlay).
Therefore, it is agreed the zone needs the new
subclause.
Note that it is not necessary for the new subclause to
refer to hazards, as this is dealt with under the hazard
codes.
The clause needs some 'and" or' definition. New subdivisions
clearly cannot meet (a) as there will be no existing road.
Subclauses (f) to (i) have a different function in that they are
providing conditions for internal lots.
Clause to be reviewed.
KC
Arrangement and construction of roads in the ELZ should
minimise impacts on environmental values.
Agree.
Subdivision
Recommend: Include an additional regional mandatory (or at
the least regional optional) provision as follows:
Roads
Be designed, located and constructed to minimise adverse
impacts on environmental values.
14.5.4
Nevertheless, agree that a new subclause should be
added to push proposed building areas to location of
least environmental impact.
P14
Lot design
14.5.2
Regional Project Response
P14
These are all matters for condition. P2 is implicit due to the
minimum lot size. Footnote format to clauses is unnecessarily
complicated.
152
Whilst land in this zone would likely be covered by the
Biodiversity Code and this would do this, it is possible
that land may not be covered by the code (for those
Councils applying the Biodiversity Code by an overlay).
Therefore, it is agreed the zone needs a new
subclause.
Review drafting of clause, footnotes are provided for
explanatory purposes only.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
14.5.5
From
Regional Project Response
HCC
This PC would not be achievable in many cases or may not
result in the best conservation outcome, the issue would be
better addressed through the Biodiversity Code.
Agree – delete, this issue should be addressed in the
Biodiversity Code.
KC
This clause is supported however there should be an
acceptable solution for public open space, a riparian reserve,
public services or utilities.
See comment above.
Subdivision
Ongoing Protection of Natural
Values.
14.5.5
Comment or Suggestion
Subdivision
Ongoing Protection of Natural
Values.
Recommendation:
Qualify A1 by changing to the following:
A1 No Acceptable Solution except if for public open space, a
riparian reserve, public services or utilities.
15.0 URBAN MIXED USE ZONE
15.2
HCC
Use Table
Residential: The (qualification for) Residential – home based
business should probably say AND a floor area no more than
30m2 rather than OR
Agree.
This is also relevant to Use Tables in:
- General Residential,
- Inner Residential
15.4.3
Design
P96
Of particular concern is (c) which reads:
(c) ensure any single expanse of blank wall in the ground level
façade and facades facing other public spaces does not
exceed 15m2; it is suggested that a specific area of 15m2 is
overly constraining on existing developments in the Urban
Mixed Use Zone. It is suggested that expanses of blank walls
could be mitigated with architectural treatments rather than
windows and door openings.
153
The treatment of large expanses of blank wall on
public façades with architectural detail is provided for
in the performance criteria for this standard. No
change recommended.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
15.4.3
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
HCC
Need some performance criteria for shutters.
Agree, provide a performance criteria for shutters.
P96
Clause 15.4.4 requires (for the Acceptable Solution) building
design to provide safety for the public in relation to visibility of
entrances, window glazing, avoiding entrapment spaces and
provision of external lighting. Of particular concern is (b)(ii)
which reads:
It is considered that this is only an issue for existing
freestanding shopping centres, provision as it applies
to existing shopping centres will be reviewed.
Design
Shutters
15.4.3
Design
Passive surveillance
(b) provide windows with clear glazing no less than the
following:
(ii) 30% of the façade of walls that face public spaces or a car
park for the building;
Larger retail operations often do not have existing windows
facing adjacent car parking areas. Although the premise
behind the provision is supported, it is suggested that windows
and clear glazing be provided on walls which align public
streets and spaces, but which do not face car parking areas.
15.4.5
HCC
Landscaping
Re A1 Is it intended that this standard only apply where the
site is in a Mixed Use Zone across the road from a Residential
Zone? If so that should be stated to make it clear.
Explanation:
No. This is not intended. Clarify objective to make
clear.
A2 addresses ‘visual break from residential zone’.
15.4.8
Residential Amenity
Access to sunlight.
HCC
A1 will be very difficult to achieve in much of the Mixed Use
Zone in Hobart where existing houses are built close to
boundaries, the lack of a performance criteria could prohibit
even minor dwelling extensions. Does A1 mean sunlight must
be provided to every habitable room and all of the private open
154
Agree this needs amending.
In first instance the phrasing of this AS should change
to align with new draft PD for residential development
in the General Residential Zone.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
space?
Secondly, a PC should be created – along the lines
drafted in the new draft PD for residential development
in the General Residential Zone.
Glenorchy City Council intends to apply the Village Zone
provisions to Collinsvale. Collinsvale has a sense of central
place and a character, which justify such zoning in preference
to the current undifferentiated Rural Residential Zone.
Agree.
16.0 VILLAGE ZONE
16.2
GCC
Use Table
Liaise with GCC to identify uses to be optional.
However, the Village Zone provisions make feasible a range of
much higher order range of uses. It would be preferable if there
were more regional optional provisions in relation to use – so
that a more narrow palette of land use possibilities could be
tailored to Collinsvale’s character and circumstances.
16.3.1 P2
Use standards
noise, dust, etc
11.4.3 (c)
Design
P86
Acceptable solutions within the proposed Village Zone for
discretionary uses, A1 concerning opening hours; the hours
contained in the initial document stipulated opening hours
between 8.00AM & 6.00PM Mon. - Fri. etc.. The new document
has stretched out these opening hours to 7.00AM & 9.00PM
Mon - Fri. etc. I do not consider the latter stipulations to
constitute a reasonable impact on the residential amenity of
the zone in my neighborhood.
The hours are not considered excessive in a zone with
a mix of residential, community services and
commercial activities.
It is suggested that a specific area of 15m2 is overly
constraining on existing and potential new bulky goods retail
developments. The Planning Scheme needs to recognise that
in any retail operation (be it bulky goods or otherwise) a
Review standard, issue particularly for existing
development.
155
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
core requirement of the business is the display of goods and to
do so requires expanses of blank walls inside the buildings. It
is suggested that expanses of blank walls could be mitigated
with architectural treatments rather than windows and door
openings.
16.5.1 A1(b)
TPC
Drafting error - references table 16.1, which is not included
within the zone provisions.
This is ‘regional optional’ and is to be deleted by
Planning Authorities if not required.
HCC
The objective and design standards seem to be the ones used
in the Business Zones and are not necessarily appropriate for
the Community Purpose Zone, you would not expect awnings
over footpaths in this zone for example.
Agree, modify awnings standard to ‘optional’ as per
Recreation Zone.
CCC
The Regional Mandatory qualification on the discretionary use
of Visitor Accommodation restricting it to “camping and
caravan park” should be removed as in many cases other
forms of accommodation (e.g. holiday cabins or eco-lodge) are
likely to be less obtrusive and more appropriate than a caravan
park.
Agree.
17.0 COMMUNITY PURPOSE ZONE
17.4.3
Design
18.0 RECREATION ZONE
No comments were received
in relation to this zone.
19.0 OPEN SPACE ZONE
19.2
Use Table
156
Change qualification to regional optional.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
20.0 LOCAL BUSINESS ZONE
20.1.1.6
CHC
Purpose
Suggest that this be reworded. Also concerned that “minor
activity centre” is not defined.
Most statements are ‘optional’ and can be reworded as
required by Planning Authorities.
Activity Centres - various types – are described in the
STRLUS.
21.0 GENERAL BUSINESS ZONE
21.2
HCC
Make Food Services and Visitor Accommodation optional so
local qualification can be added.
Agree.
IG3
We submit that given the primary purpose of the General
Business Zones is for retailing, that Bulky Goods retailing
should be afforded a permitted status in this zone.
Bulky goods sales means; use of land for the sale of
heavy or bulky goods which require a large area for
handling storage and display. Examples include
landscape supplies, timber yards, boat sales and
furniture showrooms. Given the nature of these types
of uses with the possibility of large vehicle movements,
extensive parking areas and streetscape impacts they
are given a discretionary status in the General
Business Zone. This enables the use and potential
impacts to be assessed against the relevant zone
purpose statements. Uses which require a large area
for handling, storage and display are unlikely to be
appropriate in all General Business Zones. The
provision is regional optional for those Councils who
wish to change the use status.
Use Table
21.2
Use Table
Bulky Goods retailing is a legitimate form of retailing and
should not be prejudiced against in terms of planning
requirements over and above general retail and hire. As far as
the prominence of bulky goods retail within our
community, we occupy approximately 30% of all retail floor
space. The need to consider unique spatial and planning
requirements for bulky goods is key to supporting this growing
retail sector.
157
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
21.3.2
From
Why should a business with 49m from a residential zone which
wishes to have amplified music which does not exceed the
above limits be prohibited but one 51 m away can be
approved, even though the level of music or size of the
amplification and thus the potential impact may be less for the
one within 50m. A2 seems unnecessary and would only restrict
rather than encourage businesses. comments apply to all
business zones
Agree, insert a performance criteria
GCC
Should we develop specific standards for existing and/or new
shopping centre proposals? Methods for addressing design,
passive surveillance issues etc for shopping centre complexes
are quite different to those one might employ for single shops
that front a road.
Agree – standards to be revised for existing stand
alone shopping centres.
HCC & P56
A2 5m setback would appear to be a waste of space in areas,
which are of high value commercial land. Why are we requiring
a greater setback than in residential zones? The provision of
vacant land of vacant land to the rear of commercial properties
is not conducive to crime prevention. A buffer should not
necessarily mean open space. It can be a different form of
separation.
Explanation:
Development Standards
21.4.2
Regional Project Response
P56
Use Standards - Noise
21.4
Comment or Suggestion
Setback from land in a
residential zone.
A greater setback is proposed as the likelihood of
activities detrimental to residential amenity are greater
coming from a commercial use than another residential
use.
The 5 m setback is in the acceptable solutions, and
only applies at the zone boundary. It would affect
relatively few properties.
It can be varied under the performance criteria.
21.4.3
Design
P56
The wall colour facing a residential zone is not a planning
matter. Colour preference is a personal opinion with what is
and is not a muted colour debatable. Is baby pink muted? Is
dark grey muted? The current resident might not like the
colour but someone moving in will buy it knowing the colour
158
Issue appropriate to address but suggest be reworded
as follows:
Exterior building surfaces must be coloured using
colours with a light reflectance value not greater than
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
21.4.3
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
and except the situation or won’t buy it. If they don’t like a
colour they can grow a tree. Once again the scheme is over
zealous and trying to enforce suburban residential amenity in
the inner city area
40 percent.
HCC
A1 there needs to be performance criteria for shutters. This
also applies in other commercial zones.
Agree, provide a performance criteria for shutters.
P11,P31,
P43 & P64
The design requirements may be appropriate to apply to new
development but application of them to alterations or changes
to existing buildings will mean a large number of discretions
will be triggered. Consideration should be given to exempting
existing development from these requirements. The glazing
requirements will be particularly problematic for the existing
supermarket building and generally in the case of shops within
the centre given they generally face inwards to the internal
carpark. The requirement to provide for the main pedestrian
entrance to the building at the frontage will also be problematic
for the existing supermarket.
Agree – standards to be revised for existing stand
alone shopping centres.
It is suggested that a specific area of 15m2 is overly
constraining on existing and potential new bulky goods retail
developments. The Planning Scheme needs to recognise that
in any retail operation (be it bulky goods or otherwise) a
core requirement of the business is the display of goods and to
do so requires expanses of blank walls inside the buildings. It
is suggested that expanses of blank walls could be mitigated
with architectural treatments rather than windows and door
openings.
Review standard as per above.
Design
Shutters
21.4.3
Design - general
21.4.3 (c)
Design
159
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Passive surveillance
IG3,
P11,P31,
P43 & P64
The requirement for glazing on the street front as well as facing
a car park is of particular concern. It is not realistic for shops to
have so much glazing given their products need to be
displayed against the outer walls. In the case of the existing
shopping centres, it would be very difficult to even demonstrate
compliance with all the corresponding performance criteria,
meaning that any additions or alterations to the building could
be deemed prohibited.
Agree – standards to be revised for existing stand
alone shopping centres.
21.4.7
HCC & P56
Why are we imposing residential fencing requirements in a
non-residential zone should fencing in this zone be more open
and transparent.
Explanation:
21.4.4
Fencing
Restricts transparency to 50 percent should be at least 50
percent.
Regional Project Response
This standard differs from that in the residential zones
in that it does not make fences permitted within 4.5m
of the frontage. It is unlikely that front fences will be
desired in this zone.
The term ‘walls’ should also be inserted and
transparency should be at least 50%.
The other provisions relate only to fences along a zone
boundary with a residential zone.
22.0 CENTRAL BUSINESS ZONE
22.2
HCC
Make use classes optional where there is a local qualification
to be inserted.
OK
HCC & P56
A2 6m setback would appear to be a waste of space in areas,
which are of high value commercial land. Why are we requiring
a greater setback than in residential zones? The provision of
vacant land of vacant land to the rear of commercial properties
Explanation:
Use Table
22.4.2
Setback from land in a
residential zone.
160
A greater setback is proposed as the likelihood of
activities detrimental to residential amenity are greater
coming from a commercial use than another residential
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
is not conducive to crime prevention. A buffer should not
necessarily mean open space. It can be a different form of
separation.
Regional Project Response
use. It would affect relatively few properties.
The 6 m setback is in the acceptable solutions, and
only applies at the zone boundary.
It can be varied under the performance criteria.
22.4.3
HCC
A1 there needs to be performance criteria for shutters.
Agree, provide a performance criteria for shutters.
HCC
P1 (f) there may be other circumstances where awnings are
not necessary or possible?
Agree, provide for no awning if not possible due to
physical constraint such as location of other structure
on footpath, eg; tree, electricity pole. This applies in
other commercial zones.
HCC
Food services refer to restaurants cafes and take aways, what
is the difference between a cafe and a restaurant being that
the cafe is permitted and restaurant is not mentioned therefore
discretionary? Suggest delete food services qualification.
The Southern region wanted to define ‘café’, but this
was not supported by the TPC Advisory Committee on
the basis that the common (dictionary meaning) is
sufficient.
Design
Shutters
22.4.3
Design
Awnings
23.0 COMMERCIAL ZONE
23.2
Use Table
The intention is to provide for takeaways and cafes
within the Commercial Zone as permitted uses, but not
providing permitted status for restaurants, which
should be in the business zones. This is an optional
provision and can be deleted by Planning Authorities if
not wanted.
23.2
Use Table
HCC
Insert 'except if permitted' next to service industry under
discretionary
161
Agree.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
23.2
From
P56
Use Table
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Vehicle parking multi storey and commercial car parks, should
be discretionary in all zone including the Commercial Zone to
ensure that the number of commercial car parks can be
regulated and thus the number of car parking provided within
the city. This would enable purpose E6.1.1 (g) of the parking
and access code and the strategic sustainable transport plans
to be supported and implemented.
Vehicle parking is already discretionary in the General
and Central Business Zones. Agree should also be
discretionary in the Commercial Zone as a regional
optional provision.
There are serious concerns with the discretionary status given
to the use class, “General Retail and Hire” in the Light
Industrial Zone.
This is a regional optional provision and can be deleted
or qualified as necessary as CCC has done ie; ‘Only if
hire of machinery and equipment’.
24.0 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE
24.2
GCC
Use Table
It is considered that allowing shops in this Zone would
seriously undermine the integrity of the Zone and would have
potential to drain nearby established activity centres of
commercial activity.
If there are any councils that want this, the preference would
be for the regional optional provision to be “prohibited” but to
allow those councils that want discretionary status to opt in.
This would not prevent ancillary retail facilities associated with
bona fide industrial and warehousing activities.
24.4.2
Setback
P56
What do you do with 3m of vacant land at the back or side of
an industrial shed. Store rubbish and encourage
vandals/crime by providing non surveillance spaces in close
proximity to residents. Better to have building to the
boundaries with height restrictions within 3m of a boundary
rather than open space
162
The setback is required to protect residential amenity
and is consistent with setback s in the residential
zones. The setback can be reduced in accordance
with the performance criteria.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
24.3.3 / 24.4.4
From
HCC
External lighting / passive
surveillance.
Comment or Suggestion
Clause 24.3.3 should be cross checked to ensure consistency
with the development standards in clause 24.4.4, which relates
to passive surveillance.
Regional Project Response
Explanation:
24.3.3 controls external lighting close to a residential
zone to protect amenity.
24.4.4 requires external lighting to illuminate pathways,
car parks and entrapment spaces.
(Plus – see below)
Both need to be accommodated with a particular
design.
(Plus see below)
24.4.4
HCC
These comments apply to all similar standards. A1(a), (d) and
(e): are these consistent with 24.3.3? The latter clause says no
lighting except security lighting, and all security lighting must
be baffled. This clause (24.4.4) is saying light everything up for
safety! if you try and comply with passive surveillance (24.4.4)
you will be discretionary for external lighting (24.3.3), and if you
try and comply with external lighting (24.3.3) you will be
discretionary under passive surveillance (24.4.4). We are
sending mixed messages here and punishing the applicant as
a result. Compliance with one permitted standard should not
mean you fall foul of another, compliance with all permitted
standards should be possible.
Compliance with both acceptable solutions is a matter
of careful design. Note A1 (d) is repeated in P1 (e) –
review this.
HCC
These comments apply to all similar standards; how is it
possible in practice to demonstrate that a use will not emit dust
outside its site boundaries? A car parking on a site will emit
fumes that are likely to be detectable from adjoining properties.
This clause will either just be disregarded as being complied
with (because it is basically impossible to assess) or will make
every new use discretionary. It’s also likely to create a large
Standard to be reviewed.
Passive surveillance
24.3.6
Dust, Smell, Fumes and Other
Emissions
163
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
compliance burden for councils. It should be reconsidered.
24.4.3 A1 (b)
HCC
Design
HCC
Some clarity is needed here. These comments apply to all
similar standards.
Agree, clarify that fixed glazing is allowed provided that
it is double glaze to prevent noise transmission.
A2(b) what is an opening? un-openable windows should still be
permissible. otherwise residential sites are going to be faced
with blank walls of buildings, which is not a good design
outcome.
“if within 50 m of a residential
zone, must not have openings
in walls facing the residential
zone, unless the line of sight
to the building is blocked by
another building.”
A1(b)(i)
Change as suggested.
provide windows and door openings at ground floor level in the
front façade which amount to no less than 20 % of the surface
area of the ground floor level facade.
Design
24.4.4
Agree.
A1(b) should be reworded as follows:
“provide windows and door
openings at ground floor level
in the front façade no less
than 20% of the surface area;”
24.4.3
Some clarity is needed here. These comments apply to all
similar standards.
HCC
A1(b)(i) should be reworded as follows:
Agree, Change as suggested.
20% of the ground level facade of walls in the ground level
facade that front a street.
Passive surveillance
(b) provide windows
with clear glazing no less than
the following
(i) 20% of the facade at
ground level of walls that front
a street
24.4.4 A1(b)(ii)
Passive surveillance
HCC
A1(b)(ii) should be reworded as follows:
10 % of the ground level facade of walls in the ground level
164
Agree, Change as suggested.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
facade that face a public space or a car park for the building.
(b) provide windows with clear
glazing no less than the
following:
(ii) 10% of the facade at
ground level of walls that face
public space or a car park for
the building
24.4.5
Landscaping
HCC
A1 is unclear. is it trying to say all development should have
landscaping on the frontage of a site, unless the scheme
otherwise requires a nil frontage setback? It appears A1 affects
anything other than sites with no setback requirement. which
means it doesn't require any other site to have landscaping.
This is unlikely to be the intent. It should read:
This acceptable solution was created at the behest of
the TPC Advisory Committee, which insisted that every
permitted use must be provided with a permitted
pathway through the development standards, (despite
the Template’s clear philosophy that use and
development are very different things).
Excluding sites for which the planning scheme allows a nil
frontage setback, landscaping must be provided on a site's
frontage for all new buildings and for all extensions to existing
buildings, which reduce the existing building's frontage
setback.
STRPP’s original view was that some development
standards simply cannot have acceptable solutions.
The other possibility is that it is only not meant to apply to
proposed buildings which will be physically built to the site's
front boundary, in which case the clause should read:
Landscaping must be provided on a site's frontage for all new
buildings and for all extensions to existing buildings which alter
the existing building's frontage setback, unless the new
building or extended existing building is built to the site's front
boundary.
The former option is preferred. The latter is still unclear
because does it mean the entire front boundary needs to built
165
The first suggested wording would have problems in
that any site that the scheme allows a nil setback
would not have to provide landscaping, regardless of
where the building is built.
The second suggested wording is unclear re: ‘existing
buildings which alter the frontage setback’.
Nevertheless, agree that new wording should be
found. Some provision needs to be made for site
access.
Suggest:
Landscaping must be provided along the frontage of a
site (except where access in provided) unless the
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
on to avoid landscaping? or just part of the front boundary?
building has nil setback to frontage.
25.0 GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE
No comments were received
in relation to this zone.
26.0 RURAL RESOURCE ZONE
General
P72
This is a general objection to all provisions and restrictions in
the Rural Resource Zone and particularly the notion that
subdivision is to be highly restricted.
The provisions and restrictions on land use in the zone
are necessary to further the zone purpose and the
objectives of the STRLUS.
26.1.1.3:
GCC
This purpose statement was drafted to reflect the Forestry Act
1920 by specifically providing for recreation and conservation.
Noted.
P59
"Manufacturing and processing: Only if manufacturing of rural
equipment or processing rural products" This needs to be more
specific to provide certainty
It is considered that the current wording provides
sufficient clarity. No change recommended.
P12 & P25
Many agricultural activities require the operators to be resident
on the property. There needs to be scope within the planning
scheme for additional dwellings to accommodate multiple fulltime farm operators or employees on the farm, without them
having to be all accommodated in the same dwelling or an
ancillary dwelling
Agricultural workers dwelling should be classified as
ancillary to agricultural use. See clause 8.2.2 of the
Template.
CHC & P25
Council has some concerns with clause (e) under P1. Any
Visitor Accommodation should be encouraged within existing
cluster or close to existing infrastructure rather than on the
Agree.
Purpose
26.2
Use Table
26.2
Use Table
26.3.2:
Visitor Accommodation
166
However, should make (e) an ‘either / or’, as either
locational direction would be valid. i.e. either on the
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
26.3.2:
From
P41
Visitor Accommodation
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
property’s poorer quality agricultural land that may be a
considerable distance away from any infrastructure.
property’s poorer agricultural soil or within the farm
homestead buildings precinct.
In the Use Table (26.2) of the Rural Resource Zone (26.0) it
states that Visitor Accommodation, such as a holiday cabin, is
a discretionary activity. It also defines 'Holiday Cabin' as
accommodation in a separate building. In the Use Standards
the Acceptable Solutions for visitor accommodation (26.3.2)
further state that visitor accommodation must be
accommodated in 'existing' buildings.
No change required. Visitor accommodation in an
existing building is the acceptable solution, if a new
building is proposed it can be approved in accordance
with the performance criteria.
My comment is that this appears to be rather contradicting.
Surely a person wishing to establish a holiday cabin on their
land zoned 'Rural Resource' cannot be expected to have such
a cabin existing on their land. Yet having a cabin constructed
would not comply with 26.3.2 (existing building).
26.4.1
Building Height
Hydro
We consider that the qualitative standards provided in (a) to (c)
are appropriate to ensure that due consideration is given to the
height of buildings in assessment of development.
However, the inclusion of an upper most standard of 15m for
non-residential development would likely restrict typical rural
industries and operations such as grain storage facilities and
processing facilities. Such facilities are prominent in the
landscape but are typical of the structures that may be evident
in such environments.
Similarly, the development of utility infrastructure such as wind
farms and transmission lines is likely to be significantly greater
167
Agree – generally
Remove absolute height limit from PC.
Wind farms will be addressed in the Wind and Solar
energy Code.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
than 15m in height.
In the case of wind farms greater than 30MW in generating
capacity this would require a planning scheme amendment to
facility such projects. This is considered unnecessary as such
projects will be subject to a detailed assessment as Level 2
Activities under the Environmental Management and Pollution
Control Act 1994, thereby allowing for rigorous assessment of
all environmental impacts.
Most importantly, requiring a planning scheme amendment for
such development would be would conform with current best
practice process for the assessment of renewable energy
projects.
As such we would suggest replacement of (d) to accommodate
consideration of the nature of development and its particular
location, regardless of height:
(d) The visual impacts of use and development within the
rural landscape shall take into account the particular
nature of the rural landscape and the nature of the
proposed development to ensure that any impacts are
minimised where possible.
26.4.3 P1
Location of buildings.
Hydro
While it is clear that the intent of this part is to ensure
protection of the skyline landscape values, it is likely to
significantly restrict the potential development of utility
infrastructure such as wind farms or transmission lines as this
type of infrastructure will invariably be required to locate on or
near ridgelines due to functional requirements of the
infrastructure.
It is therefore recommended that this part be amended to allow
168
Agree, expand scope of P1(a). PC suggested in
submission should be dealt with in Scenic Landscapes
Code.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
for a development of a wind farm on a skyline or ridgeline
subject to assessment of the visual impact of individual
projects.
This may include a performance standard to the effect that:
Development should be sited and designed to minimise
its visual impact on:
(a) the natural, rural or heritage character of the area; and
(b) areas of high visual or scenic value.
26.4.3 A2:
TPC
Design.
Appearance of buildings.
Standards 26.4.3 A2 and 27.4.3 A2 require buildings to have
external finishes that are non-reflective and are to blend in with
rural landscapes. This would appear to be a standard reflecting
residential ideals rather than rural resource requirements.
Not agree, standard to be reworded in accordance with
similar standard in other zones.
Reconsider Clauses 26.4.3 A2 and 27.4.3 A2. This standard
appears to reflect residential ideals rather than rural resource
requirements, and without a performance criteria, could be
considered onerous.
26.5.1
CG1
Subdivision – new lots.
TLC
26.5.1
Subdivision – new lots.
TPC
That Councils have the discretion to approve subdivisions in
the Rural Resource Zone creating internal lots if and only if:
- the subject land contains an existing internal lot or lots;
- no new internal lots are being created; and
- creation of an internal lot or lots is necessary for a logical
consolidation of land use/land capability.
The provisions, other than those relating to subdivision, are
considered to respond adequately to the PAL Policy and limit
the expansion of residential and associated uses into rural
land. However standard 26.5.1 – New Lots, has an Acceptable
Solution that reads A1 A lot is for public open space, a riparian
169
Agree, there should be some flexibility for the creation
of internal lots in this zone, wording to be reviewed.
Explanation:
In regard to the creation of new lots in the rural zone
the Regional Model Scheme provides two options for
Council to choose from.
One prohibits the creation of new lots whilst the other
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
or littoral reserve or utilities. This is a regionally mandatory
provision, which has two Regionally optional provisions
depending on the perspective of the Council.
allows new lots subject to a range of performance
criteria.
Concerns regarding provisions include:
• If a new lot is allowed to be created, then it is
reasonable to assume it may one day be subject to
a proposal to accommodate a dwelling. It would be
prudent at the time of subdivision to ensure it is
possible to accommodate a dwelling in a location
that will not increase potential for land use conflict.
• Regional Policy PR 1.4 applies to agricultural land
that has been identified as regionally significant.
The Significant Agriculture Zone applies to such
land.
• Regional Policy PR 2.1 provides for minimum lot
sizes for subdivisions to be tailored to subregions,
whilst PR 2.2 provides that the minimum lot size is
to take into account the optimum lots size for the
predominating agricultural enterprise within a
subregion.
•
Requiring new lots to be able to contain a building area
capable of accommodating a residential development,
although this is not the objective of the zones.
•
The subdivision standards in both zones are not
considered to be consistent with the PAL Policy (Principle
1) and Regional Policy PR 1.4 of the STRLUS in that
there are limited tests to protect agricultural land.
Recommendation: The subdivision standards must be
reconsidered and amended in the following manner:
•
Remove reference to new lots being capable of
accommodating a residential development, as this is not
the purpose of the zone.
Provide tests for the protection of agricultural land within
the subdivision standards of both zones, to ensure
consistency with PAL Policy (Principle 1) and Regional
Policy PR1.4 of the STRLUS.
Reword Clauses 26.5.1 and 27.5.1 to provide quantifiable
acceptable solutions in accordance with PAN13. Provide
performance criteria that specify an appropriate minimum
lot size to ensure compliance with Regional Policy PR2.2
of the STRLUS.
•
•
26.5.2
Subdivision – reorganisation
TPC
Regional Project Response
Concerns regarding provisions include:
•
In the event of a reorganisation of lot boundaries, the
170
In regards to the two dot points raised:
Explanation:
The rationale for boundary reorganisation lies in the
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
of boundaries.
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
performance criteria enable new lots to have a
minimum lot size of 1ha, which would appear to
contradict Regional Policy 2.2 of the STRLUS.
fact that much of our rural land is inappropriately
subdivided at present. Many viable agricultural
properties are only viable because they consist of
many titles. Landowners are free at any time to sell all
their titles to different individuals - without the need for
the approval of any authority. Such cases result in the
destruction of viable agricultural properties and
applications for dwellings in poor locations.
The reorganisation of boundaries is an incentive
mechanism aimed at encouraging the creation of large
titles more likely to be viable in their own right, whilst
eliminating existing poor potential dwelling locations
from the system.
If a reorganised lot is allowed under this clause, then it
is reasonable to assume it may one day be subject to a
proposal to accommodate a dwelling. It would be
prudent at the time of subdivision to ensure it is
possible to accommodate a dwelling in a location that
will not increase potential for land use conflict.
PR 2.2 refers to the subdivision of new lots, not to the
(better) reorganisation of existing lots.
26.5.2
CHC
Council does not believe that a whole farm management plan
or business plan as specified in P1(c)(i) & (ii) should be
required and this wording should be removed and replaced
with something like “demonstrated to Council’s satisfaction”.
Agree in part remove the requirement for a business
plan.
CHC
P1(f)(iii) – Suggest that this be reworded so that Council will
not be required to provide public infrastructure or services.
It is not intended that this clause would lead to a
situation where Council is required to provide public
P1(c)(i) & (ii)
Subdivision – reorganisation
of boundaries.
26.5.2
P1(f)(iii)
171
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Subdivision – reorganisation
of boundaries.
Regional Project Response
infrastructure or services. Rewrite (f)(iii) to recognise
some increase in demand may be acceptable subject
to conditions.
27.0 SIGNIFICANT AGRICULTURE ZONE
Mapping of Significant
Agriculture Zone
SMC
It is noted that the Significant Agricultural Zone mapping could
be better defined to natural contours, rather than title
boundaries, in places where the topography or soil type may
not be accommodating to intensive farming activities.
Acknowledged.
There may well be circumstances where the mapping
of this zone is justified in departing from cadastral
boundaries and following contours.
Recommendation
Mapping be reviewed to better define the extent of the
Significant Agricultural Zone Boundary and the boundary of the
zone should be defined to natural contours where necessary.
27.2
Forestry in the Significant Agricultural Zone is discretionary,
but in describing what is allowable, native forest operations
appear to be excluded. DIER recommends the amendment of
the Use Table at 27.2 to read ‘Only if for forest operations, tree
farming and plantation forestry in accordance with a Forest
Practices Plan and not located on prime agricultural land’.
Not agree.
P5
Tourist Operation – this use is only permitted if associated with
agricultural use of the property. It is requested that this be
reworded to allow tourist visitation associated with the
conservation of heritage buildings as their preservation for
future generations depends upon such visitation.
No change required, what is suggested is possible
under clause 9.4 Change of Use of a Heritage Place.
P12 & P25
Many agricultural activities require the operators to be resident
As per Rural Resource Zone.
DIER
Use Table
27.2
172
Forestry in all its forms should be significantly limited in
this zone.
Land potentially accommodating forestry should be
zoned Rural Resource.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Use Table
27.4.3 A1
Comment or Suggestion
on the property. There needs to be scope within the planning
scheme for additional dwellings to accommodate multiple fulltime farm operators or employees on the farm, without them
having to be all accommodated in the same dwelling or an
ancillary dwelling
P25
A1 (a) Add "rare and endangered" before native vegetation.
Not supported, the intent is to minimise adverse
impacts on the rural landscape and not just to protect
rare and endangered vegetation.
TPC
Standards 26.4.3 A2 and 27.4.3 A2 require buildings to have
external finishes that are non-reflective and are to blend in with
rural landscapes. This would appear to be a standard reflecting
residential ideals rather than rural resource requirements.
As per Rural Resource Zone
Design
27.4.3 A2:
Regional Project Response
Appearance of buildings.
Reconsider Clauses 26.4.3 A2 and 27.4.3 A2. This standard
appears to reflect residential ideals rather than rural resource
requirements, and without a performance criteria, could be
considered onerous.
27.5.1
Subdivision – new lots.
TPC
The provisions, other than those relating to subdivision, are
considered to respond adequately to the PAL Policy and limit
the expansion of residential and associated uses into rural
land. However standard 26.5.1 – New Lots, has an Acceptable
Solution that reads A1 A lot is for public open space, a riparian
or littoral reserve or utilities. This is a regionally mandatory
provision, which has two Regionally optional provisions
depending on the perspective of the Council.
Concerns regarding provisions include:
•
Requiring new lots to be able to contain a building area
173
The Regional Model Scheme does not provide for
subdivision of new lots under 27.5.1, (except for public
purposes).
Some of the TPC comments here may relate to 27.5.2
(refer below).
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
capable of accommodating a residential development,
although this is not the objective of the zones.
•
The subdivision standards in both zones are not
considered to be consistent with the PAL Policy (Principle
1) and Regional Policy PR 1.4 of the STRLUS in that
there are limited tests to protect agricultural land.
Recommendation: The subdivision standards must be
reconsidered and amended in the following manner:
•
•
•
27.5.1:
Subdivision – new lots.
TPC
Remove reference to new lots being capable of
accommodating a residential development, as this is not
the purpose of the zone.
Provide tests for the protection of agricultural land within
the subdivision standards of both zones, to ensure
consistency with PAL Policy (Principle 1) and Regional
Policy PR1.4 of the STRLUS.
Reword Clauses 26.5.1 and 27.5.1 to provide quantifiable
acceptable solutions in accordance with PAN13. Provide
performance criteria that specify an appropriate minimum
lot size to ensure compliance with Regional Policy PR2.2
of the STRLUS.
Clause 27.5.1 with the Significant Agricultural Zone is not
quantifiable and accordingly is inconsistent with PAN13. The
lack of performance criteria and unclear wording allows lots to
be subdivided to sizes arguably smaller than the 40ha
minimum lot size of the Rural Resource zone. This
contravenes Regional Policy PR2.2 of the STRLUS.
Not agree.
This clause provides for subdivision of new lots for
public goods, such as public open space, riparian
reserves, public services and utilities.
Many such lots would certainty be very much smaller
than 40 ha.
However, it would not be wise to prohibit such
174
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
subdivision, even in the Significant Agriculture Zone.
Allowance for new lots for public goods is not
considered to be in contravention of STRLUS.
However, it is noted that 27.5.1 A1 is not identical to
26.5.1 A1. Therefore, replace 27.5.1 A1 with a copy of
26.5.1 A1.
27.5.2
(Some of the TPC comments above may relate to 27.5.2)
Subdivision – reorganisation
of boundaries.
Explanation:
The rationale for boundary reorganisation lies in the
fact that much of our rural land is inappropriately
subdivided at present. Many viable agricultural
properties are only viable because they consist of
many titles. Landowners are free at any time to sell all
their titles to different individuals - without the need for
the approval of any authority. Such cases result in the
destruction of viable agricultural properties and
applications for dwellings in poor locations.
The reorganisation of boundaries is an incentive
mechanism aimed at encouraging the creation of large
titles more likely to be viable in their own right, whilst
eliminating existing poor potential dwelling locations
from the system.
If a reorganised lot is allowed under this clause, then it
is reasonable to assume it may one day be subject to a
proposal to accommodate a dwelling. It would be
prudent at the time of subdivision to ensure it is
possible to accommodate a dwelling in a location that
will not increase potential for land use conflict.
175
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
PR 2.2 refers to the subdivision of new lots, not to the
(better) reorganisation of existing lots.
27.5.2
P25
Subdivision – reorganisation
of boundaries.
Remove the following as it is unnecessary
c) provide for the sustainable commercial operation of the
land by either:
(i) encompassing all or most of the agricultural land and key
agricultural infrastructure (including the primary dwelling)
in one lot, the 'primary agricultural lot', as demonstrated
by a whole farm management plan,
No reason is given for this being ‘unnecessary’ and it is
consistent with the objective to: To promote the
consolidation of rural resource land and to allow for the
rearrangement of existing titles, where appropriate, to
provide for a better division of land. No change
recommended.
(ii encompassing an existing or proposed non-agricultural
rural resource use in one lot, as demonstrated by a
business plan;
28.0 UTILITIES ZONE
General comment.
DIER
Although the review of the Road and Rail Assets Code is
expected to deal with rail issues, DIER recommends that the
protection of rail corridors be included for consideration, and
areas for maintenance and repair be incorporated within the
Utility Zone. It should be noted that residential property in
close proximity to rail corridors can be adversely affected by
rail noise and vibration. DIER recommends consideration be
given to adequate buffer zones (minimum 50m) to ensure
future residential development is not impacted. It is also
recommended that line of sight distances are maintained at
level crossings and are not impacted by future. These
176
Noted, the preferred approach is to wait for the
outcome of the Road and Rail Assets Code which has
been several years in the making and both DIER and
the TPC were aware of the timelines for the
development of the Southern region planning
schemes.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
provisions could then be reviewed once the Road and Rail
Assets Code is finalised, to ensure there is no duplication or
inconsistencies
28.2
HCC
Make storage optional so local qualification can be added.
Agree
28.3.3
DIER
The impact of Use Standards for External Lighting at 28.3.3 is
of concern to DIER, in regard to providing appropriate lighting
on major highways and intersections. DIER proposes that an
exemption for street lighting be included.
Agree
28.4.1
Hydro
It is considered that the requirement for building height to be
compatible with the scale of nearby buildings, may be
unachievable and is likely to be unreasonable given the nature
of utility development.
Agree, review wording suggested.
Use Table
Development Standards
Building Height
The height of developments such as power stations, dams,
wind turbines, transmission lines, and other infrastructure is
defined by its functional requirements, which has the potential
to be very tall (20-100m). A restriction requiring compatibility of
scale with nearby buildings could impact the ongoing function
of existing utility infrastructure should it require replacement or
renewal.
As such we recommend the following, or a similar amendment
to reasonably allow the consideration of continued use and
development of Hydro Tasmanian land for utility infrastructure:
(a) be consistent with any Desired Future Character
Statements provided for the area or, if no such
statements are provided, have regard to the landscape of
the area, the existing land use and functional
177
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
requirements of the development.
29.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ZONE
General
PWS
Happy with the zone from a Three Capes Track/PWS
perspective.
Noted.
29.1.1
Hydro
The application of this zone to Hydro Tasmania managed
The specific comments from Hydro on the spatial
application of zones to particular Hydro land have been
forwarded on to the planning authorities concerned.
Purpose
land and water assets should be carefully examined on a caseby-case basis so as to avoid the potential restriction of the
future use and development of this land for its current
purposes.
Hydro Tasmania is generally supportive of the application of
this zone to lakes, and natural waterways managed by Hydro
Tasmania, subject to the application of the Hydro Lakes Code
to these assets.
If this code is not applied to Hydro Tasmania lakes, water
bodies and waterways. we would recommend the inclusion of a
statement that adequately recognises the existing and future
use of land and water assets held by Hydro Tasmania and
their purpose as electricity generating assets.
29.2
DPIPWE
Use Table
29.2
Use Table
HCC
Qualification for Use Class of ‘Extractive Industry’ – indicates
that a Nature Recreation Area is a reserve class that allows for
extractive industries – this is incorrect and should not be
included.
Agree.
Need to clarify the status of a Reserve Management Plan - the
definition reads as though it is only for statutory management
plans so the vast majority of Council management plans and
Explanation.
178
Change.
The intention is that it is a statutory management plan.
Statutory management plans have been through
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
the like would not satisfy this Qualification.
Regional Project Response
formal public notification and hearings at the TPC.
It is only statutory management plans that have been
through a sufficiently robust process that they can alter
use status. The TPC Advisory Committee has
endorsed the following definition:
means a management plan prepared under the
National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002,
the Wellington Park Act 1993 or the Living Marine
Resources Act 1995, or a plan of management
prepared for an area reserved under the Crown Lands
Act 1976.
29.2
Use Table
Hydro
The permitted uses being applicable where:
Not agree.
“Only if in accordance with a reserve management plan. “
Firstly:
The permitted use standards would appear to be attempting to
allow for Management Plans to be used as a decision making
tool, and a third party land owner consent process to set
development standards.
PWS is not merely a ‘third party’. It is a public authority
charged with responsibilities under various pieces of
legislation.
We consider this inappropriate for a number of reasons.
Reserve Management Plans developed by the PWS are not
necessarily aligned in a way that would allow application of
their provisions through a planning scheme (as they generally
do not include prescriptive development standards). In
addition, for the management plan provisions to be applicable,
use standards would need to be aligned with those in the
planning scheme.
Utilising management plans in this way has the effect of
devolving decision making to a third party document that has
179
Statutory Management Plans proceed through a
proper process involving statutory exhibition, public
hearings and, ultimately assessment and
determination by an appropriate independent body.
Duplication of this process through the planning
system is not warranted.
Secondly:
The provision primarily involves change to the use
status. It does not absolve proposed use or
development from complying with any applicable use
and development standards within the planning
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
not been explicitly identified as an incorporated document.
Such an approach to decision making has been regularly
rejected by the Tasmanian Planning Commission.
Finally, as the vast majority of these areas do not comprise
land that is reserved under the Nature Conservation Act 2002,
management plans cannot be prepared under the National
Parks and Reserve Management Act 2002 for this land and
water bodies.
Based on this, we would recommend removal of reference to
management plans as a way of determining use status in the
planning schemes.
29.2
Regional Project Response
scheme.
Thirdly:
It does not matter if many, or even most, reserved
areas do not have Statutory Management Plans. In
such cases the provision is simply inactive.
Finally:
This matter is essentially a State policy matter and the
decision rightfully sits at a level above the TPC and
RMPAT. It is acknowledged that this should be set by
the state and thence followed by the TPC / RMPAT.
HCC
Insert except if permitted next to Pleasure Boat facility.
Agree
HCC
Provide for residential (may be existing dwellings in the zone
such as on Porters Hill).
Councils to provide this as a local provision, if they can
justify the need.
HCC
Provide for sports and recreation to be considered as
discretionary.
Agree.
DIER
The new Environmental Management Zones appear to prohibit
forest operations, and DIER submits that forest operations
should be allowed as a regional discretionary activity. DIER
suggests the Use Table at 29.2 be amended to include
wording such as ‘for forest operations on existing forested land
in accordance with an approved Forest Practices Plan’.
Not agree.
That any building or development approvals in this zone should
be discretionary and subject to the following conditions:
Unless in accordance with a reserve management plan
all development is discretionary. These will need to be
considered in relation to the zone purpose statements
Use Table
29.2
Use Table
29.2
Use Table
29.2
Use Table
29.2
CG1
Use Table
TLC
180
This is at odds with the purpose of this zone.
Areas potentially accommodating forestry should be
zoned Rural Resource.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
The Council is satisfied that the significant natural values of the
affected and land will not be impacted by the
building/development.
which require the protection of natural values. No
change recommended.
The development standards; height, setbacks and
design will apply to private land in the zone. “Natural
values’ defined. No change recommended.
29.3 and 29.3.4
CG1
Use and development
standards
TLC
That use and development standards for private land in the
Environmental Management Zone should be specifically
addressed in the schemes, including definition of ‘significant
natural values’.
29.3.1 A1 (a) and (b)
Hydro
29.3.1 A1 (a) and (b):
Explanation.
The objectives for the management of reserved land as
identified in Schedule 1 of the National Parks and Reserves
Management Act 2002 are not suitable for use as acceptable
solutions for use or development standards as they are
qualitative statements, not easily measurable. These
provisions could be more appropriately included as
performance criteria.
The intent of the provision is to ensure that a use
deemed appropriate in a Statutory Management Plan
and therefore accorded permitted use status by the
planning scheme also accorded with any other
intention of the Statutory Management Plan in regard
to use.
Use Standards for Reserved
Land.
Similarly, Reserve Management Plans developed by the PWS
are not aligned in a way that would allow for such application
through a planning scheme (as they generally do not include
prescriptive development standards), or clearly articulate
appropriate land uses.
29.4.1 P1
Development Standards.
Height
Hydro
While generally this provision relating to height standards for
development within this zone are appropriate, they do not
anticipate the need for the continued use and development of
Hydro Tasmania land for utility infrastructure.
As such we recommend the following, or a similar amendment
to reasonably allow the consideration of continued use and
181
Any other applicable use standards in the planning
scheme, for example in codes, still apply.
Agree. Review suggested wording.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
development of Hydro Tasmanian land for utility infrastructure:
(a) be consistent with any Desired Future Character
Statements provided for the area or, if no such
statements are provided, have regard to the landscape of
the area, the existing land use and functional
requirements of the development.
29.4.2
P38 7 P80
The setback standards will prohibit the development of a jetty
in this zone.
Agree. Modify performance criteria to allow for
buildings and structures which by their nature are
dependent on a coastal location. Also an issue for
utilities.
Hydro
Area (TWWHA) of 500m is impractical given that many Hydro
Tasmania Assets are already built to the boundary of the
TWWHA.
Agree.
Setbacks
29.4.2 A5
Development Standards.
Setback from EMZ
•
•
This would result in operating assets being considered nonconforming for the purposes of the planning scheme.
500 m AS.
100 m absolute limit
under PC.
This issue needs to be addressed.
Specific allowance to be made for Hydro (or any
agency or GBE?)
As in the case of the Gordon Power Station, Strathgordon
Village, Scotts Peak and Edgar Dams, all of these Hydro
Tasmania sites are located and include infrastructure that is
within 100m of a boundary with the TWWHA.
This would result in a situation where a significant number of
Hydro Tasmania assets were brought into a situation of being
nonconforming development and any new development
(however minor) would be prohibited.
29.4.2 P5
Development Standards.
Setback from EMZ
Hydro
We consider that the requirement to performance criteria
required associated with a reduced setback to the Tasmanian
Wilderness World Heritage Area are generally unreasonable or
impractical due to the close proximity of existing Hydro
182
Agree.
(Need to further consider proposed solutions).
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Tasmania asset to the boundary of the TWWHA. As such we
believe the standard should be amended as follows:
(a) there is no impact from the development on
the physical environmental values of the land within the
World Heritage Area;
(c) there is no potential for contaminated or sedimented
water runoff impacting the land within the World Heritage
Area is minimised;
(e) be no less than 100 m, unless for a utilities use and no
practical alternative exists.
29.5.1
GCC
Subdivision
P1 Glenorchy City Council wishes to use the Environmental
Management Zone as its zone translation for the Landscape
and Conservation Zone in its current planning scheme. We
inserted a local provision in the use table making Single
Dwelling a discretionary use on land other than public land. We
chose not to use the Environmental Living Zone because of its
presumption for residential use. However, there is an
unintended effect - in that by making a Single Dwelling an
allowable use, 29.5.1 P1 operates to allow subdivision for
single dwellings without any parameters whatsoever as to lot
size, frontage or dimensions. We are happy to retain the status
quo that applies in our Landscape and Conservation Zone and
not allow subdivision.
Is this necessary, given that the provision is a
performance criteria, and therefore discretionary. If a
subdivision is not in alignment with the objective – i.e.
‘for management of environmental values’, then it
should be refused. It was not intended that private
land with potential for dwellings be included in this
zone.
Nevertheless, it is suggested the GCC add a new local
A2/P2 to deal more specifically with proposed
subdivision of a dwelling.
We submit that the regional provision be able to be modified to
enable Glenorchy to add "other than a Single Dwelling"
29.5.1
Subdivision
GCC
P1 The same issue applies to all uses that are P or D, I would
suggest that the entire provision P1 needs to be reviewed, it
183
Is this necessary, given that the provision is a
performance criteria, and therefore discretionary. If a
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
would effectively open up subdivision for a lot of purposes,
each of which could be sold of and run by private operators,
potential for death by a thousand cuts scenario?
Regional Project Response
subdivision is not in alignment with the objective – i.e.
‘for management of environmental values’, then it
should be refused.
Nevertheless, it is suggested the GCC add a new local
A3/P3 to deal more specifically with proposed
subdivision of other uses.
29.5.1
CG1
Subdivision
TLC
That subdivision should be precluded in this zone except for
provision of public open space, a public reserve or utilities.
Subdivision may be required for the other uses allowed
in the zone and should not be precluded. No change
recommended.
30.0 MAJOR TOURISM ZONE
No comments were received
in relation to this zone.
31.0 PORT & MARINE ZONE
No comments were received
in relation to this zone.
32.0 PARTICULAR PURPOSE ZONE 1 – URBAN GROWTH ZONE
32.1.1
Regional Zone Purpose
P59
"prejudice" is the wrong term - replace with "compromise its
potential" perhaps?
33.0 PARTICULAR PURPOSE ZONE 2 – FUTURE CORRIDOR ZONE
184
Agree, modify clause.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
33.2
From
DIER
Use Table
Utilities.
Comment or Suggestion
Utilities are a discretionary use in the Future Road Corridor
Zone. DIER undertakes extensive planning and consultation in
developing new road corridors and contends that utilities
should be a permitted use, rather than discretionary.
Regional Project Response
Not agree.
Utilities other than those provided by DIER may be
inappropriate.
E.1.0 BUSHFIRE-PRONE AREAS CODE (A STATE-MANDATED CODE)
General comments:Subdivision.
TasWater
Under the Bushfire Prone areas code in areas served by
corporations defined as Bushfire Prone (either a council
defined overlay or if not, within 100m of 1 hectare of bush) that
meet the hose lay and the 10l/s @200kPa do not need an
additional 10,000l on-site tank.
For background information it should be noted that prior to
1995 the 10l/s @ 200kPa minimum was formative not
normative so we may have a number of areas with fire
hydrants that don’t provide this minimum requirement.
We also note that our systems are not designed for bushfire
situations (multiple fire plugs in operation etc.). We design the
water supply system in residential areas to only deliver 1 fire
plug at 10l/s - which is suitable for a „domestic structure fire‟.
Also under Section 56ZG of the WSIA in an emergency (which
I think a bushfire is) we may not be able to provide the service,
therefore in bushfire prone areas our infrastructure should only
be seen as supporting local on-site fire fighting.
Recommendation:
185
STRPP to refer comment to TPC.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
At subdivisional stage planning schemes should ensure either
that:
- The minimal lot size is adequate to allow for installation of
10,000 litre tank. The same is true for development requiring
sufficient space for on-site water storage if required to meet
TasFire/Council requirements; or
- The hydraulic infrastructure is upgraded to provide the
necessary flows from the water supply system.
Use of intent to enter a
LUPAA Part 5 Agreement as
an Acceptable Solution.
STRPP
The use of intent to enter into a LUPAA Part 5 Agreement
mechanism as an Acceptable Solution for various standards is
a significant concern:
1. Whether an agreement would successfully be concluded
between the various parties is entirely unknown at the
development application stage. It therefore does not
comply with the TPC’s drafting guidelines (PAN13) for the
Template.
2 The provisions appear to mandate that Council must enter
into such an agreement. This is an unacceptable situation
to local government, as it may subsequently be impossible
to devise an agreement acceptable to Council, the subject
landowner and the neighbouring landowner. More
importantly, a Council can quite legitimately take the policy
position that it will not enter into any such agreements
relating to bushfire matters.
3 If a Council does enter into such an agreement, it takes on a
186
The Southern Regional to raise this matter with the
TPC as and when the opportunity arises, for example
at the formal TPC panel hearings into the Southern
interim planning schemes.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
significant measure of liability. No matter what onus the
agreement puts on the landowners concerned, ultimately
failure to comply with the agreement (for example, allowing
a fire hazard to develop) will have to be policed by
Councils. Each such agreement will therefore create a
potential legal liability situation for Councils. Local
government has not agreed to take on this liability.
E1.2
HCC
Application of the Code
E1.2
HCC
Application of the Code
(a) – ‘Construction of habitable buildings’ should be amended
to read ‘the construction or extension of habitable buildings’ for
clarity.
Agree
Changes of use, beyond ‘vulnerable’ and ‘hazardous’ uses,
need to be captured to some degree under this Code. There is
no justification for allowing a change of use to a more sensitive
use without assessment under this Code. The bushfire-prone
area provisions of the BCA apply to changes of use, and new
uses are required to meet the current BCA standards for that
use (confirmed with the Director of Building Control, July
2013).
STRPP to refer comment to TPC.
STRPP to refer comment to TPC.
Therefore changes of use under the BCA will generally require
upgrading of the building to comply with AS3959, upgrading of
access and upgrading of water supply (where not compliant).
These requirements have implications for planning (i.e.
(building alterations, modified access, new water supplies) and
therefore need to be considered under the planning process to
ensure they are consistent and complimentary.
E1.3
Definition of terms in Code
HCC
Approved Lot – This definition does not appear in the draft
Interim Hobart Scheme but is included in PD1 so must also be
included in the scheme Code. It is assumed that this term
187
STRPP to refer comment to TPC.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
applies to lots approved through informal application of the
scheme as ‘best practice’ even when the Code was not a
statutory part of the scheme, however clarification would be
useful.
E1.3
HCC
Bushfire Hazard Management Plan - What is the ‘approved
form’ of BHMPs (as per the definition in the Act)? If this has
been specified by the Chief Officer, why has it not been
communicated to Planning Authorities? If the ‘approved form’
has not been specified, why not given the Code was released
more than 6 months ago?
STRPP to pass query on to TPC.
HCC
Bushfire-Prone Vegetation – This definition is very vague and
its application is often unclear, particularly for developed lots
with dense vegetation and those with bushland gardens. What
constitutes ‘maintenance’ for ‘maintained lawns, parks and
gardens’? Does 50% understorey clearing of forest vegetation
constitute a ‘maintained garden’? Does 100% understorey
clearing of woodland vegetation constitute a ‘maintained
garden’? It must also be recognised that the exclusions under
the definition of BPV are different to the definition of ‘low threat
vegetation’ under AS3959 which can lead to inconsistency
between the planning process and the building process (i.e. a
HMA or vegetation excluded from the definition of BPV may
not count towards the separation distance in a BAL
assessment under the building system.
STRPP to pass query on to TPC.
HCC
Contiguous – Is this measured at ground level or canopy level?
STRPP to pass query on to TPC.
HCC
Dangerous Substance - the Dangerous Substances (Safe
STRPP to refer comment to TPC.
Definition of terms in Code
E1.3
Definition of terms in Code
E1.3
Definition of terms in Code
E1.3
188
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
HCC
Hazard Management Area – ‘Minimal fuel condition’ requires a
comprehensive and detailed definition so that people know
what is required for Hazard Management Areas. It should also
be consistent with the definition of ‘low threat vegetation’ and
‘minimal fuel condition’ under AS3959 so that HMAs approved
under the planning system can be relied upon as separation
distances for BAL assessments under the building system.
STRPP to refer comment to TPC.
HCC
Hose Lay – This definition requires no consideration of
property ownership. If this is incorrect, it needs to be clarified.
STRPP to refer comment to TPC.
TasWater
Regional Corporations no longer exist. Simply use TasWater or
Water Corporation and define somewhere.
STRPP to prefer comment to TPC.
HCC
The Hobart 2013 Strategic Risk Register identifies “community
emergencies” (bushfires etc ) as one of the 3 extreme risks
faced by the City. Prior to Southern / TasWater the Council
would assess proposed building lots, particularly within
bushfire prone areas, to ensure that the building sites were
adequately protected by compliant fire hydrants. If not the Final
Plan would be notated accordingly, enabling the purchaser and
Council planning staff to know that private on-site water
storage (for fire fighting) would be required in order to comply
with the “Guidelines for Development in Bushfire Prone Areas”.
STRPP to refer comment to TPC.
Definition of terms in Code
E1.3
Definition of terms in Code
E1.3
Definition of terms in Code
E1.4
Use or development exempt
from this Code
Regional Project Response
Handling) Act 2005 no longer exists so a new definition is
required.
Definition of terms in Code
E1.3
Comment or Suggestion
Unfortunately TasWater’s approach to date has been to only
assess its fire fighting water capacity at lot frontages. This is
inconsistent with the Council’s “life safety” objective of
protecting “residential dwellings”. It is not clear that fire plug
189
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
pressure and flow rates need to be considered by the
“accredited persons” before recommending that the building
sites on a proposed residential subdivision will be adequately
protected by existing or proposed fire hydrants. This should be
addressed.
E1.4
HCC
The exemptions have been poorly devised for Council’s who
have been requiring TFS-endorsed BHMPs for a number of
years. Very little consideration/recognition of this is included in
the Code.
STRPP to refer comment to TPC.
HCC
(c) – There is no justification for limiting the size of extensions
under this exemption unless historical TasFire assessments
have been inadequate and TFS-endorsed BHMPs are
inappropriate.
STRPP to refer comment to TPC.
HCC
(e) – Insert ‘bushfire’ before ‘hazard management plan’.
STRPP to refer comment to TPC.
HCC
There appears to be no justification for capturing ‘visitor
accommodation’ as a ‘vulnerable use’ but not other similar
uses such as hotels or tourist operations. Similar standards
should apply regarding emergency evacuation plans.
STRPP to refer comment to TPC.
GCC
The table listed here does not have a table heading, e.g. is this
Table E1? It should have a page with a table heading, it should
not be a page with a heading for a standard (a standard being
an objective together with acceptable solutions and
performance criteria) and a table as its content.
STRPP to refer comment to TPC.
GCC
The heading name and nr for this standard are not consistent
STRPP to refer comment to TPC.
Use or development exempt
from this Code
E1.4
Use or development exempt
from this Code
E1.4
Use or development exempt
from this Code
E1.5.1
Vulnerable Uses
E1.5.1
Vulnerable Uses
E1.5.1.1
190
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Standards for Vulnerable Uses
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
with convention:
(a) It is a single standard, not multiple standards as implied by
the heading name, because there is one objective that is
achieved with multiple Acceptable Solutions and Performance
Criteria.
(b) No other standard has the word 'standard' included in the
heading name (the term standard is already mentioned in the
parent heading 'E1.5 Use Standards'.
(c) There is in fact no standard (a standard is an objective with
the necessary acceptable solutions and performance criteria)
under the heading 'E1.5.1 Vulnerable Use'
(d) Heading names should be as short as possible
Recommendation:
Move the content from this page to the page with the heading
'E1.5.1 Vulnerable Use' and delete this page altogether.
E1.5.2
HCC
There is no justification for limiting ‘hazardous uses’ to
particular use classes. The key criterion is that dangerous
substances are stored/used above certain threshold amounts.
The risk is not related to the use class but the nature and
quantity of dangerous substances used/stored.
STRPP to refer comment to TPC.
HCC
A1(b)(iii) - It is not clear who is responsible for determining that
separation distances will comply with AS3959 for BAL-19 (i.e.
the planning authority or the proponent). What if the Planning
Authority and the proponent have different opinions on the
relevant separation distance for BAL-19? The Planning
Authority should not have to determine compliance with the
separation distances for BAL-19 where the detailed
STRPP to refer comment to TPC.
Hazardous Uses
E1.6.1.1
Subdivision: Provision of
Hazard Management Areas
191
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
assessment method is required (i.e. where the BPV is on
slopes exceeding 20 degrees and is down slope)
E1.6.1.2
HCC
Subdivision: Public Access –
Objective
E1.6.1.2
STRPP to refer comment to TPC.
(b) – This objective is not quite correct and is not reflected in
the standards. Often the BPV will not be on the same land as
the subdivision, so access to the BPV shouldn’t be a
requirement.
HCC
The numbering of Acceptable Solutions and Performance
Criteria ceases from this section of the Code onwards.
This is being rectified within the CMS.
HCC
A1(b) & (c)(ii) – These AS refers to the location of ‘private
access’, however the Objectives only relate to public access
and roads, not private accesses. This is reflected in the PC,
which makes no mention of ‘private access’ only ‘roads’ and
‘fire trails’.
STRPP to refer comment to TPC.
Subdivision: Public Access –
Standards
E1.6.1.2
(a) – Insert ‘and egress’ after ‘access’.
Subdivision: Public Access
A1(c)(i) – This requires all building areas to be within 200m of
a road that is a ‘through road’ as the crow flies’ rather than a
vehicle path, which is not logical (e.g. there may be a through
road within 200m of the subdivision lots that is not accessible
from the subdivision).
A1(c)(iii)(b) – This doesn’t make sense as there would be no
vegetation once the road is constructed. The area may also
not be currently vegetated. If the road needs to be separated
from the BPV by a certain distance, this needs to be specified.
E1.6.1.2
Subdivision: Public Access –
HCC
A2 only requires public roads (and fire trails where they are
public roads) to be constructed in accordance with the Table.
192
STRPP to refer comment to TPC.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
A2 & Table E3
E1.6.1.2
HCC
The ARRB Unsealed Roads Manual is not widely available and
the specifications for 4C Access Roads are somewhat vague
and unclear (e.g. what constitutes ‘flat’, ‘rolling’ and
‘mountainous’ terrain?). It would be far preferable for the
specific requirements to be fully detailed in the Code (and also
the BCA). Many designers and accredited people are finding
this confusing and difficult to interpret and may be applying it
incorrectly.
STRPP to refer comment to TPC.
HCC
It is noted that existing fire hydrants are not guaranteed by
TasWater to have the required flow rate and pressure.
Therefore any proposal relying on existing hydrants to meet
the AS should also have to provide the written advice of
TasWater that the relevant hydrant will provide the required
flow rate and pressure.
STRPP to refer comment to TPC.
HCC
Amend first line to read ‘in areas that will not be serviced by
reticulated water’ (the extension of the reticulated water
network may form part of a subdivision proposal).
STRPP to refer comment to TPC.
HCC
No additional standards are necessary for the provision of
HMAs for habitable building on ‘approved lots’ (‘a lot marked
on a plan of subdivision that has been approved by the
granting of a permit in accordance with this Code’). The
standards in E1.6.1.1 Subdivision: Provision of Hazard
STRPP to refer comment to TPC.
Subdivision: Provision of
Water Supply for Fire Fighting
Purposes – A1 & A2(c)
E1.6.1.3
Subdivision: Provision of
Water Supply for Fire Fighting
Purposes – A2
E1.6.2.1
Approved Lots: Provision of
Hazard Management Areas
for Habitable Buildings
Regional Project Response
‘Roads’ means public roads under section 4 of the scheme.
Private accesses outside the road reservation and fire trails
that are not ‘roads’ do not have to comply. Accesses on
private land are addressed under E1.6.2.2.
Subdivision: Public Access –
Table E3
E1.6.1.3
Comment or Suggestion
193
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Management Areas require HMA’s for all lots to be determined
at the subdivision stage so there is no need for reassessment.
If the subdivision complied with A1(a) the risk was determined
to be too low to warrant HMAs. If the subdivision complied
with A1(b) or P1, adequate HMAs for all lots have already been
determined. The only justification for reassessment would be
where it is proposed to build outside a designated building area
that was used to demonstrate compliance with the subdivision
standards for HMAs. However, it is not clear whether the
‘building areas’ shown on the Subdivision Plans are mandatory
or indicative so this situation would only arise where ‘building
areas’ are not mandatory (otherwise an amendment to the
subdivision permit would be required).
E1.6.2.2
HCC
(a) – Insert ‘and egress’ after ‘access’.
STRPP to refer comment to TPC.
HCC
(b) – This AS is redundant as E1.6.1.2 does not relate to
private access, only public access. Private Access to ‘building
areas’ do not have to be shown on subdivision plans and the
Objective does not relate to private access.
STRPP to refer comment to TPC.
HCC
Replace ‘habitable buildings and static water supply points’
with ‘habitable buildings or static water supply points’ so that
private accesses must comply if required to provide access to
either habitable buildings or static water supply points.
STRPP to refer comment to TPC.
Approved Lots: Private Access
– Objective
E1.6.2.2
Approved Lots: Private Access
– A1 & P1
E1.6.2.2
Approved Lots: Private Access
– A3
The ARRB Unsealed Roads Manual is not widely available and
the specifications for 4C Access Roads are somewhat vague
and unclear (e.g. what constitutes ‘flat’, ‘rolling’ and
194
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
‘mountainous’ terrain?). It would be far preferable for the
specific requirements to be fully detailed in the Code (and also
the BCA). Many designers and accredited people are finding
this confusing and difficult to interpret and may be applying it
incorrectly.
E1.6.2.3
HCC
Approved Lots: Provision of
Water Supply for Fire Fighting
Purposes
E1.6.3.1
Pre-Existing Lots: Provision of
Hazard Management Areas
for Habitable Buildings – A1
Some of these provisions are redundant for ‘approved lots’.
There is no need for reassessment of water supply where this
has been demonstrated to comply at the subdivision stage.
STRPP to refer comment to TPC.
A1(d) – ‘Connections for fire-fighting purposes’ need be
specified. It is understood that the TFS now wants ‘DIN or
NEN Standard compliant forged Storz 65 mm adaptor fitted
with a standard (delivery) washer rated to 1800 kPa working
pressure and 2400 kPa burst pressure’, however presumably
this is only applicable for tanks, not for dams, swimming pools
etc. However, it is recognised that this is inconsistent with
BCA requirements (‘an opening in the top of not less than
250 mm diameter or be fitted with a male 64 mm 5v thread
coupling capable of delivering 270 L per minute’).
HCC
A1(c)(i) - It is not clear who is responsible for determining that
separation distances will comply with AS3959 for BAL-29 (i.e.
the planning authority or the proponent). What if the Planning
Authority and the proponent have different opinions on the
relevant separation distance for BAL-29? The Planning
Authority should not have to determine compliance with the
separation distances for BAL-29 where the detailed
assessment method is required (i.e. where the BPV is on
slopes exceeding 20 degrees and is down slope).
P1 – It is unclear how compliance with this PC could ever be
195
STRPP to refer comment to TPC.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
achieved for smaller lots. It is understood that BAL-29 is the
highest construction level that the TFS will accept (to allow for
a reasonably-sized defendable space for fire-fighting).
Therefore if Acceptable Solution A1(c)(ii) cannot be met,
neither can P1. This would be an unacceptable situation
where many existing vacant lots are effectively ‘sterilised’
because they can’t extend HMAs on to neighbouring properties
and aren’t allowed to reduce the risk to acceptable levels
through a higher level of building construction (e.g. BAL-40,
BAL-FZ). It is therefore recommended that the PC is removed
so that proponents have to negotiate an acceptable outcome
with TasFire or an accredited person, or that the PC is relaxed
by deleting (e) from the PC.
E1.6.3.2
Pre-Existing Lots: Private
access
HCC
Objective – Insert ‘and egress’ after ‘access’.
A3/P3 – These standards are identical to those for ‘approved
lots’ and fail to acknowledge that ‘pre-existing lots’ will be
unable to meet these standards in many cases. Given that the
minimum lot frontage under LG(BMP)A has historically been
3.6m, virtually all pre-existing internal lots will not be able to
comply with the PC unless they benefit from an adjacent ROW.
Planning Authorities would not be able to approve a relaxation
of these standards under the PC as they are not experts on
fire-fighting vehicles. It would also be counter-productive for
PAs to approve a relaxation of the standards when compliance
with the same standards would be required under the BCA
without an ‘alternative solution’ being approved. An absolute
minimum set of standards for such situations need to be
specified by the TFS. It is understood that all TFS fire-fighting
196
STRPP to refer comment to TPC.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
vehicles have a width of no more than 2.5m. Without a
relaxation of these standards, this would be an unacceptable
situation where many existing vacant internal lots are
effectively ‘sterilised’ because they don’t have ROW over
neighbouring properties and aren’t allowed to reduce the
bushfire risk to acceptable levels through a higher level of
building construction (rather than relying on active fire-fighting
for defence). The strict requirements for HMAs and access to
pre-existing lots appears overly-onerous given the new ‘leave
early’ policies and designation of conditions where fire-fighting
is not a realistic option (e.g. catastrophic fire conditions).
E.2.0 POTENTIALLY CONTAMINATED LAND CODE
Potentially Contaminated Land
Code left blank in the draft
model scheme.
STRPP
/ TPC
The Potentially Contaminated Land Code has been
intentionally left blank/unpopulated in the Regional Model
Planning Scheme, due to the intended work to be undertaken
by the State as expressed in the draft State Planning Directive
on this matter.
The TPC has confirmed its intention to finalise the Planning
Directive that will create a State-wide Potentially Contaminated
Land Code before the Southern planning schemes are
declared.
Support for code
DIER
DIER is supportive of the Potentially Contaminated Land Code,
Landslip Code, and Flood Prone Areas Code being
incorporated within the Scheme when drafting is finalised by
the Planning Commission.
197
The draft interim planning schemes submitted to the
Minister will omit this code.
The subsequent finalisation of the relevant State
Planning Directive before declaration of the Southern
schemes will enable them to include the new statewide code.
Support noted.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
E.3.0 LANDSLIDE CODE
Landslide Code left blank in
the draft model scheme.
TPC
The Landslide Code has been intentionally left
blank/unpopulated in the Regional Model Planning Scheme,
due to the intended work to be undertaken by the State as
expressed in the draft State Planning Directive on this matter.
Agree.
The TPC has confirmed it will not have finalised the Planning
Directive that would create a State-wide Landslip Code before
the Southern planning schemes are declared.
The regional code will be included in the draft interim
planning schemes submitted to the Minister.
The STRPP will work with the DPAC hazards policy
unit to develop a regional landslip code - based on the
intended State principles for dealing with this issue.
The TPC therefore has directed the STRPP to provide a
regional version of this code.
Support for code
DIER
DIER is supportive of the Potentially Contaminated Land Code,
Landslip Code, and Flood Prone Areas Code being
incorporated within the Scheme when drafting is finalised by
the Planning Commission.
Support noted.
The Regional Code addressing inundation due to sea level rise
addresses many issues in the (mooted) Flood Prone Areas
Code.
The regional Inundation Prone Areas Code will
incorporate riverine and inland flooding.
E.4.0 FLOOD PRONE LAND CODE
Flood Prone Land Code left
blank in the draft model
scheme.
TPC
This code initially only addressed inundation due to
sea level rise as it was expected the Statewide Flood
Prone Land Code would deal with riverine flooding.
Until and unless this Statewide code is finalised, the
regional Inundation Prone Areas Code will deal with
both riverine flooding and coastal seal-level rise
flooding.
198
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
Support for code
From
DIER
Comment or Suggestion
DIER is supportive of the Potentially Contaminated Land Code,
Landslip Code, and Flood Prone Areas Code being
incorporated within the Scheme when drafting is finalised by
the Planning Commission.
Regional Project Response
Support noted.
E.5.0 STATE ROAD & RAIL ASSET CODE
This Code is awaiting the
outcome of a Planning
Directive and comments on it
were not invited as part of this
process.
E.6.0 PARKING AND ACCESS CODE
E6.3
HCC
‘material change’ (see HCC comments re: E6.4)
GCC
Why are multiple dwellings exempt? Are parking access
standards for multiple dwellings covered elsewhere?
This exemption needs to be reviewed in the light of the
Planning Directive for Residential Development in the
General Residential Zone. It is proposed in that
Planning Directive that single dwellings be required to
provide parking. Standards for multiple dwellings will
be also added in accordance with that Planning
Directive.
HCC
E6.4.1(c) 'material change' may be difficult to establish as a
criteria for exemption without a detailed traffic study. The
definition of material change is also not clear, what does
'vehicle use' mean, is it just vehicles visiting the development
Agree. Delete material change as an exemption.
Definition of terms
E.6.4
Use or Development Exempt
from Code.
E.6.4
Use or Development Exempt
from Code.
199
Relating increase to floor area percentage increase per
se would require a table specifying different floor area
percentages for differing Use Classes and/or defined
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
site? The exemption would be better related to increase in
floor area square metres or percentage.
uses.
However, it is noted that an expansion of floor area
may indicate ‘material change’ if this translates to more
than a 10% greater parking requirement under the
parking code.
E.6.5.19(c)
IG3, P11,
P31, P43,
P64, P76 &
P96
The requirement at E6.5.1 (c) to provide a TIA for use or
development that increases the number of vehicle movements
per day by more than 40 is considered onerous. It is suggested
that the Council and TPC consider increasing the number of
vehicle movements per day that triggers a TIA otherwise the
cost burden on property owners and developers to provide
TIA's will be too great. 40 vehicle movements per day is a very
small increase in traffic movements when spread across an
entire business trading day (say 9am -5pm) of only 5 per hour.
This is not a mandatory application requirement, the
Planning Authority may waive if not required. 40 may
be a significant increase for some uses. No change
recommended.
E6.6
GCC
E6.6.1 AS The number of car parking spaces standard has two
rounding rules. I originally included specific rounding rules in
the standard. These were subsequently relegated to a footnote
then reinstated below the car parking table. I prefer the
rounding rule originally drafted (which now sits below the table)
rather than the one include in the AS because I believe that it
is fairer and more consistent with community expectations of
how rounding works. I also believe that this rule will, at the
margins, reduce car parking requirements and support more
sustainable transport choices. My submission is that the
rounding rule in the AS be deleted and that the rounding rule in
the notes to the table be reinstated in the standard. (Including
the car parking credit provisions).
Agree in part, it is appropriate for the rules to be
attached to the Table, the rounding rule should be
removed from the AS.
Use Standards
&
The tables.
200
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
E.6.6 Use Standards
From
CG3
Cycling
South
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Adequate bicycle parking and end of trip facilities (showers,
lockers) should be a requirement in all new urban
developments. See Victorian Planning Provisions
52.34 http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/aavpp/52_34.p
df
Agree that development over a certain size in the
commercial zones should provide such facilities, add
requirement.
E.6.6
HT
Supportive that E6.6 states that the number/location of car
parking spaces may be amended for a range of reasons
including impact on historic cultural heritage significance.
Support noted.
E.6.6
P37
This relates to parking requirements for: Food Services,
General retail and hire, Service industry, Office, Storage as
they relate to a large mixed use retail development (Shopping
Centre). Shopping centre retailers are often changing as well,
under the current proposed provisions a change of one retailer
could change the parking requirements for the centre
essentially placing shopping centres in a current state of flux
with no certainty of parking requirements for any length of time.
Review standards as they apply to shopping centres
with a mix of tenancies.
The motorcycle and bicycle parking standards are also
excessive for a large shopping centre.
E6.6.1
P31
E6.6.1 stipulates the minimum number of car parking spaces to
be provided. We note that for many use categories, there has
been an increase in the number of car parking spaces required
which for existing sites such as Shoreline Plaza, may result in
any future use and development triggering a discretion. An
example applicable to the Shoreline Plaza uses is that the
parking requirement for office has gone from 1/45m2 to
1/30m2. There have also been increases for Shop and TakeAway Food shop which will impact on Shoreline Plaza. It is
201
No change required. Table E.6.1 provides that where
an existing use or development is extended or
intensified, the additional number of car parking
spaces provided must be calculated on the amount of
extension or intensification, provided the existing
number of parking spaces is not reduced.
The numbers in the tables have been collated largely
by comparing the requirements of similar provisions in
existing planning schemes - both in Tasmania and
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
E6.6.2
From
HCC
Number of Car Parking
Spaces for People with a
Disability
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
noted that these increases are inconsistent with the Regional
Land Use Strategy objectives to minimise reliance on cars. We
are of the view that these provisions should be reviewed.
interstate and are considered appropriate.
A1(a) will require a detailed car parking design at the
development application stage. Is this necessary given that
the BCA needs to be complied with in any event.
Explanation.
A car parking design sufficient to demonstrate
compliance with the standard is required at the
development application stage, however this would not
have to detail all aspects of the car park.
The onus and risk is on the applicant to know how
many accessible car parking spaces will be required at
the building approval stage, and to show these in plans
submitted for planning approval. Checking the actual
number of accessible parking spaces is not intended to
be a function on the planning authority, as this is a
matter between the applicant and the applicant’s
private building surveyor.
However, checking that the layout meets planning
scheme requirements is a function of the planning
authority, including making sure that any accessible
parking spaces needed are located as required by the
scheme provision.
E.6.6.3 and E6.6.4
Motorcycle / Bicycle Parking
Standards
P11,P31,
P43, P96 &
P64
The requirement for Motorcycle (E6.6.3) and bicycle parking
(E6.6.4) will again potentially trigger a discretion on existing
shopping centres when only small extensions or alterations are
proposed as there would currently be little or no provision for
such parking. Suggest it needs to exempt existing
development.
202
Table E.6.4 provides that where an existing use or
development is extended or intensified, the additional
number of bicycle parking spaces provided must be
calculated on the amount of extension or
intensification, provided the existing number of bicycle
parking spaces is not reduced. A similar provision
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
needs to be inserted for motorcycle parking.
E.6.6.3 and E6.6.4
P46
The number of bicycle and motorbike parking spaces required
under the code, in relation to a Bulky Goods Sales outlet is
unnecessarily prescriptive. The goods which are distributed
imply that customers will not choose a motorbike, or less so a
bicycle, as their preferred mode of transport when planning a
purchase. Though the performance criteria facilitate variation
of the number of parking spaces provided, the required
numbers seem overly generous. It is considered that 1 space
per 50m2 is enough for car or motorbike car parking spaces,
resulting in a multi-use car park where motorbikes can be
parked in the car parking lots, subsequently no space is
wasted. In regard to bicycle parking spaces, it is considered
sufficient for a Bulky Goods Sales store to provide 1 space per
2000m2 (or a minimum of 2 spaces).
Agree in principle, review standards.
P3
The bicycle parking standards need review, employee parking
is required for bulky good retailer and child care for example,
bike parking facilities are also required for the various forms of
residential development.
Agree in principle, review standards.
DIER
DIER is highly supportive of the approach taken by the Hobart
City Council in the Central Business Zone (see 6.6.5), in
applying maximum standards for car parking to activity centres
with good access to high frequency public transport corridors
(i.e. the closer to the public transport corridors the lower the
maximum level of parking). This approach is in line with the
Tasmanian Urban Passenger Transport Framework. The
Framework contains strategies designed to reduce the reliance
on private vehicles for travel by developing appropriate car
Agree in principle, provide an optional standard to
allow specification of a maximum rate. It should be up
to each Planning Authority to specify the maximum for
their activity centres based on local knowledge and
considerations.
Motorcycle / Bicycle Parking
Standards
E6.6.4
Bicycle Parking Standards
E6.6.5
203
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
parking policies and pricing mechanisms. Work underpinning
the framework recommended that minimum parking standards
for new developments are eliminated and replaced with
maximum standards. The minimum car parking standards
formula yields a surplus of car parking that is costly for
developers to provide, and encourages greater car based
travel even in areas where effective public transport choices
exist.
DIER contends that a similar approach be considered for major
and minor activity centres with access to high frequency public
transport.
E6.7.1
GCC
Number of Vehicular
Accesses
How does this clause interact with 11.5.1 A4 and P4?
It deals with the same issue: number of accesses, yet the
standards/considerations are not identical. Should the number
of accesses required for subdivisions be considered as part of
the Parking and Access Code? Or should number of access
remain in both the Code for general development other than
subdivision and in subdivision clauses in all individual zones,
but the wording should be identical?
The Parking and Access Code applies to all
development including subdivision. Development that
does not result in material change (10% increase in
vehicle use) is exempt. It is considered that the
Parking and Access Code should apply to all
subdivision irrespective of material change as the
number of access points and access design is relevant
to all subdivision. The standard should require the
provision of 1 access point for new lots. The
subdivision access standard should be removed from
all zones where it is used.
Number of Vehicular
Accesses
P11 & P43
& P64 &
P96
Clause E6.7.1 requires (Acceptable Solution) that the number
of vehicle access points be no more than 1 for each road
frontage. Again, in the case of an existing development a
discretion may unnecessarily be triggered.
Agree, review standard as it relates to existing
development.
E6.7.4
GCC
There should be a condition in the acceptable solutions linking
acceptability to sight distance. Reversing onto a road is a
Sight distance from access points is addressed in
E6.7.1
204
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
On-Site Turning
E6.7.6
HCC
Surface Treatment of Parking
Areas
E6.7.6
GCC
Surface Treatment of Parking
Areas
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
problem, for even a single dwelling and irrespective of the road
traffic volume, if sight distance is restricted.
E6.7.2 A1.
Parking spaces etc must be drained to approved stormwater
system regardless of whether or not the road they access off is
sealed. In fact it is often more important that these areas are
drained to an approved system when they drain to an unsealed
road.
Explanation.
A1 (a) Should there be an acceptable solution for development
on rural, or rural living etc. properties, where a property may
gain access of a sealed road (be that a local road or say the
Tasman Highway), but the development may well be hundreds
of meters if not kilometres into a property. In that situation, an
acceptable solution could be:
Agree - in principle, review standard.
This provision is regional optional and can be deleted
by those councils not comfortable with it.
(It may well be appropriate in rural area, but
inappropriate in urban areas.)
(a) paved or treated with a durable all-weather pavement
where within 75(?)m of an adjoining property or a sealed
roadway.
This solution also allows for water permeability and enables
the rural character to remain where appropriate. It really is not
a planning issue if a developer wants a rural type approach or
a city type approach to parking, what is of concern to planning
is impact on neighbours and on the road network. It is
considered unnecessary to make such a solution discretionary.
E6.7.8
Landscaping of Parking Areas
HCC
Does the acceptable solution actually require you to provide
landscaping? It doesn't read well - it could be interpreted to
mean if you are proposing landscaping you have to comply,
otherwise you don't. Might be better to say: "Landscaping of
parking and circulation areas must be provided where more
205
Agree does not read well. Reword noting that it needs
to be 5% if more than 5 car parks provided, not if more
than 5 car parks proposed.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
than 5 car parks are proposed This landscaping must be no
less than 5% ....". Is any old landscaping OK - e.g. one big
patch of grass so long as it's no less than 5%?
Not any old landscaping is acceptable. Add: ‘to the
satisfaction of the planning authority’.
DIER
DIER contends that provision 6.7.10, which relates to bicycle
storage, should refer to the contemporary guidelines:
Austroads – Cycling Aspects of Austroads Guides 2011.
This is more of a guideline document and is not
specific enough to be referred to in an acceptable
solution. It could be referenced as a footnote.
E6.7.11
IG3, P64 &
P96
Clause E6.7.11 requires car parking to be located behind the
building line as the Acceptable Solution. In several existing
shopping centres the car parking is already located in front of
the building line so the same issue of even small extensions or
modifications triggering a discretion will arise.
Agree, review standard as it relates to existing
development.
E6.7.12
GCC
Should reference the Aust standard for off street parking Commercial vehicles
Agree, reference Australian Standard for Off-street
Parking, Part 2 : Commercial. Vehicle Facilities AS
2890.2:2002
Table E6.1
HCC
"whichever is the greater" to be added to cinema and
community meeting uses.
Agree.
Table E6.1
GCC
Table E6.1 Need to check that all standards that allow for two
options to establish the min number of parking spaces have a
qualifier, e.g. 'whichever is the greater', for example in
Community meeting and entertainment, Place of worship.
Agree.
Table E6.1 We should not use the term 'place of worship'
under Community meeting and entertainment, the definition for
this use class uses the term 'church', which means 'place of
worship'. In accordance with drafting rule 3.2.4.4, wording must
be identical where the same meaning is meant.
Agree.
E6.7.10
Bicycle storage
Facilities for Commercial
Vehicles
Table E6.1
GCC
The entire ordinance should be checked and wherever the
206
Check and change were necessary.
Check and change were necessary.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
term 'church' is used, it should be replaced with 'place of
worship' (unless it is considered preferable to change the
definition for the use class 'Community meeting and
entertainment' by changing the example 'church' to 'place of
worship'. In that case (which may be preferred to eliminate
potential for discussion in relation to mosques etc.) the
ordinance needs to be checked and all occurrences of the term
'church' need to be replaced with 'place of worship'.
End of Trip Facilities - Cycling
DIER
Regional or local provisions appear to be limited in regard to
‘end of trip facilities’. End of trip facilities are designated places
that support cyclists and walkers in using active transport.
They also support people undertaking exercise at work, which
has health and well being benefits.
Although the Scheme refers to bicycle parking, DIER proposes
that the Scheme is extended to include facilities such as
lockers and male and female change rooms with showers.
Austroads – Cycling Aspects of Austroads Guides 2011
provides details of appropriate facilities. DIER suggests that
provisions be drafted either within the Parking and Access
Code or within the development standards for Commercial and
Community Purpose Zones.
End of trip facilities should be installed for all new major
developments and major additions to major developments,
such as office buildings, shopping centres, tertiary education
facilities and hospitals. They should be easily accessible to
users and located within the building. The facilities should also
be provided in accordance with prescribed workforce or
occupant ratios
207
Agree that development over a certain size in the
commercial zones should provide such facilities, add
requirement. (See also comment in E6.6.)
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
E.7.0 INFRASTRUCTURE CODE
General
STRPP
Possible stripping of all issues except stormwater from this
code.
It is recommended that all issues related to water and
sewerage are removed from this code, (refer below).
Possible renaming code.
General
P15
This submission has been made by the lead author of the
State Stormwater Strategy (2010) who considers that the
Stormwater Drainage & Disposal provisions in the
Development Standards look excellent. It refers to the relevant
State Guidelines including the State Stormwater Strategy and
the stormwater targets for new developments. A number of
minor changes to the wording of the standards are suggested.
Review drafting of the stormwater standards in the light
of the suggested wording changes.
E7.1
HCC
Typo in E7.1.1 (a) ensure that infrastructure connections
provided to (should be for not to) use and development
accords with appropriate standards.
Agree
Suggest adding an extra purpose i.e. (e) Ensure that land is
provided with infrastructure that is appropriate for future use
and development
Possibly although for much infrastructure other
legislation / regulation does this. Refer comments
elsewhere about the need for much of this code.
Purpose
E7.1
HCC
Purpose
E7.1
Purpose
TasWater
Introductory text makes reference to the code being a
mechanism for management of development within relevant
overlays. Shouldn’t this be included as one of the purposes?
Recommendation:
208
Change
Agree
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Include additional purpose:
Manage use and development adjacent to significant
Infrastructure.
E7.1
TasWater
Purpose
Major water pipelines:
There are a number of major pipelines in the Southern Region
that transfer bulk drinking water or sewage. The main risk to
these assets is development on or adjacent to the pipelines
with subsequent impacts on operational and maintenance
activities. Many of these pipelines have formal easements,
many don’t and rely on an “inferred” easement.
May be worthwhile but inclusion of this not possible at
this stage of the process.
While there are provision in the Water and Sewerage Industry
Act (sections 56W & 56ZI) that provide some protection for
these assets one of the most effective measures is to ensure
that other authorities, business and the public are aware that
they are present on particular land.
TasWater (South) would support the inclusion of a Major
Pipelines overlay in the planning schemes, nominally for
pipelines > 250-300 mm in diameter and provide the necessary
data if requested.
E7.2
Application
HCC
This code must be amended to cover the question of
‘serviceability’ of developments for stormwater, water and
sewage. Standards requiring connections must make it clear
that the connection must be suitable for the development (e.g.
can service the building envelope via gravity for sewer and
stormwater or provide adequate supply for fire fighting and
domestic use to the building envelope for water).
209
Agree – regarding stormwater.
Refer comments elsewhere about the need for other
infrastructure to be covered by this code.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
E7.2
From
TasWater
Application
E7.2.1(b)
P14
E7.3
TasWater
Definition of Terms
Comment or Suggestion
Specific reference to HV power and gas only. Does water and
sewerage need to be specifically mentioned? If so, down to
what level of asset?
All residential development requires management of
stormwater and as such the code conflicts with PD4 as it will
trigger a discretion (regardless of compliance with Acceptable
Solutions).
Water and Sewerage corporation definition makes reference to
Regional Corporation.
Regional Project Response
Refer comments elsewhere about the need for other
infrastructure to be covered by this code.
Compliance with all acceptable solutions will not trigger
a discretion.
Agree.
Recommendation:
Replace with “corporation” only as TasWater is statewide now
and check for consistency across all provisions and codes.
E7.3
Definition of Terms
TasWater
The definition of suitably qualified person is limited to
engineers only (CPeng and NPER). With regard to water and
sewerage works much of the design and reports are prepared
by non-engineers and provided they have the required
experience and capability this is adequate.
Recommendation:
Review definition and requirements for suitably qualified
persons in code. It is more important that the design/report is
done to a standard, as opposed to a specific type of person
210
Refer comments elsewhere about the need for other
infrastructure to be covered by this code.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
who can do the work.
E7.3
P14
Definition of Terms
E7.5
HCC
Application Requirements
E7.5
TasWater
Application Requirements
E7.6
HCC
Use Standards
The definition between major and minor stormwater drainage
system poor. If a difference is required it should relate to an
ARI level and to controlled infrastructure such as pipes or
drains.
With reference to part (a) suggest this is made clearer to
include public and private receiving stormwater systems
Provision allows the planning authority (Councils) to request
reports on water and sewerage matters. Is this necessary?
What is the intent of this section? Also, use of word “may”
could cause issues.
It should be noted that in some cases a change of use may
trigger a change in stormwater management requirements. Is
this covered here?
Review
Agree
Amend as proposed.
This code applies to more than water and sewer
matters.
Various reports may be appropriate to request.
The word ‘may’ is used instead of ‘must’ in order to
proved for ability for such reports not be required if not
needed in a particular circumstance.
Agree
The code applies to both development and use.
However, some of the provisions within the
development standards do relate to on-going use as
well.
These should be repeated as Use Standards.
Amend.
E.7.7.1
Water Supply Connections
TasWater
Code specifies potable water supply, but the corporation
provides other types of water supply connections, i.e. raw/bulk
211
Explanation:
This provision is only intended to apply to potable
water.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
water, off peak etc.
Recommendation:
Is the word potable necessary? Can this be generalised to
cover all connections?
E.7.7.1
TPC
Water Supply Connections
Superfluous.
Clauses E.7.7.1 and E.7.7.2, require applicants to refer to the
Water and Sewerage Corporation to ensure works comply with
its requirements prior to lodgement with Council. A referral
processes is already provided for under the Water and
Sewerage Industry Act 2008 and should not be duplicated in
planning schemes.
Agree, Refer comments elsewhere about the need for
other infrastructure to be covered by this code.
Recommendation: Clauses E.7.7.1 and E.7.7.2 should be
deleted.
E.7.7.1
HCC
Water Supply Connections
We need to establish compliance with A1 before we can
decide whether the application is S57 or S58 under LUPAA.
Does "be in accordance with" mean that TasWater need to
have issued their PL06C prior to advertising? If they have
issued the PL06C, but it has conditions, which modify the
proposal, is the proposal as submitted (i.e. it does not yet
comply with the PL06C) considered to "be in accordance"?
The HCC comment highlights the problems with
planning schemes purporting to control matters that
are controlled by other regulatory regimes.
TPC have suggested this component of the
Infrastructure code be deleted, (refer above).
STRPP agrees with TPC.
No development is exempt from this Code - if the site already
has a connection, and this is not proposed to change under the
application for, say, a house extension, do we need to
establish whether it is "in accordance"?
E.7.7.1
TasWater
No reference to recycled water connections.
Explanation:
This code is not intended to manage this issue.
212
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
E.7.7.1
From
P14
Water Supply Connections
E.7.7.2
TPC
Sewer Connections
Superfluous.
Comment or Suggestion
This is a delegation of decision making power to Taswater. It
also prohibits development on existing lots that have no
potable water access.
Clauses E.7.7.1 and E.7.7.2, require applicants to refer to the
Water and Sewerage Corporation to ensure works comply with
its requirements prior to lodgement with Council. A referral
processes is already provided for under the Water and
Sewerage Industry Act 2008 and should not be duplicated in
planning schemes.
Regional Project Response
see comments above
Agree.
Recommendation: Clauses E.7.7.1 and E.7.7.2 should be
deleted.
E.7.7.2
HCC
Sewer Connections
E.7.7.2
P14
We need to establish compliance with A1 before we can
decide whether the application is S57 or S58 under LUPAA.
Does "be in accordance with" mean that TasWater need to
have issued their PL06C prior to advertising? If they have
issued the PL06C, but it has conditions that modify the
proposal, is the proposal as submitted (i.e. it does not yet
comply with the PL06C) considered to "be in accordance"? No
development is exempt from this Code - if the site already has
a connection, and this is not proposed to change under the
application for, say, a house extension, do we need to
establish whether it is "in accordance"?
The HCC comment highlights the problems with
planning schemes purporting to control matters that
are controlled by other regulatory regimes.
This is a delegation of decision making power to Taswater. It
also prohibits development on existing lots that have onsite
sewerage disposals.
See comments above
213
TPC have suggested this component of the
Infrastructure code be deleted, (refer above).
STRPP agrees with TPC.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
E.7.7.3
From
HCC
Stormwater Drainage and
Disposal
Comment or Suggestion
E7.7.3 A2 the acceptable solution should refer to meeting the
targets of the State Stormwater Strategy in the same way as
the performance criteria does.
Regional Project Response
Not agree:
The intent of the acceptable solution is to provide a
simple pathway for small developments.
Under the State Template philosophy it would not be
possible to have an acceptable solution that relies
upon proving compliance with something of the nature
of the State Stormwater Strategy targets.
E.7.7.3
DIER
The approach taken under 7.7.3 in relation to Stormwater
Drainage and Disposal appears to be reasonable, and is
acceptable to DIER.
Noted.
BC
E7.7.3/A2/P2 is the trigger for water sensitive urban
design. It’s good that this is being considered here, as we
have historically been ad-hoc in our conditioning for
WSUD. WSUD is tricky because it is so site specific. Its
effectiveness depends on the sites topography; availability of
space; land use; condition of the receiving waters etc. Also,
the pollutant loading is completely dependent on the proposed
use, which should therefore dictate the targets and design of
the system.
Agree.
Stormwater Drainage and
Disposal
E.7.7.3 A2 / P2
Stormwater Drainage and
Disposal
I have a couple of points to raise here:
·
The proposed triggers are more onerous than what we
currently require and in some circumstances, under these
requirements, WSUD could be triggered for sites where the
targets (table E.7.1) are not achievable. This could create
problems for us in implementation of the scheme and
enforcement of the code. For example it might be
unreasonable to require small unit developments to treat of TP,
214
Need to review code to ensure minor developments
are not unnecessarily covered by code.
Need to ensure code can allow planning authorities to
vary targets in Table E7.1
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
TN and TSS to the specified percentage reductions despite
them being triggered.
·
While the targets (table E.7.1) are based on best
practice, the state stormwater strategy and the guidelines for
WSUD southern Tas, our view for Brighton has been that of
higher priority are gross pollutants (larger litter) and grease and
oils as well as suspended solids. This is reflected in our
endorsed stormwater strategy. Our approach to date has
therefore been to require management of these pollutants as a
minimum and encourage developers, where technically
feasible, to treat TP and TN. These are also the pollutants that
are easiest to remove through proprietary GPT systems
without the need for large footprint soft engineering solutions
(therefore generally preferred by our developers). Our
stormwater strategy and current requirements are out of step
with what is proposed in the code.
·
The way I read the code suggests that the targets in
table E.7.1 are the minimum acceptable solution for any
development, which is triggered. Currently we take a much
more pragmatic view whereby these might be the targets but
Council will accept a lesser standard where they are not
achievable (conditioned as ‘to the satisfaction of Council’s
Municipal Engineer’). For example a 45% reduction in TN is
very hard to achieve in most situations without a large-scale
biological system. I believe this is also the intent of the WSUD
guidelines.
E.7.7.3 A2 / P2
Stormwater Drainage and
BC
I understand that this code is designed to give us the head of
power to condition WSUD and to provide more consistency in
215
Agree.
Need to review code to ensure minor developments
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Disposal
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
our requirements. This is definitely a step in the right
direction. It is important however that we have discretion to
require WSUD where it is most appropriate to do so in the
context of the whole catchment, but relax our requirements
where it may not be technically feasible or inappropriate for
some other reason. I have a couple of suggestions:
are not unnecessarily covered by code.
·
Acceptable stormwater quality targets might be better
based on development type rather than one size fits all. For
example, any industrial use, transportation or car park type use
should prioritise hydrocarbons and TSS. Any use frequented
by the public e.g. commercial should prioritise gross
pollutants. More domestic type use such as residential subs
should target TP and TN and sediment and for any large
subdivision we should definitely be applying the best practice
targets in table E.7.1. This is something that could be
workshopped with stormwater engineers from the Councils as
others may have a different view.
Not agree re: differentiating different development
types within the code. This would make the code too
complicated.
Need to ensure code can allow planning authorities to
vary targets in Table E7.1
However:
The code needs to provide a trigger and a head power
for Councils to apply conditions.
Provisions should enable Councils to take consider a
range of options to developments, but should not
attempt to set out the detail of such.
·
I’m not sure what’s possible from a planning point of
view, but ideally we would have more discretion on the triggers
for WSUD, therefore allowing us to be opportunistic where
developments are proposed that are suitable for WSUD in the
greater context of the catchment.
Could these things be achieved by adopting acceptable
solutions based on development type followed by performance
criteria which are more reflective of likely pollutant loadings;
likely land availability etc.?
E.7.7.3
Stormwater Drainage and
HCC
E7.7.3 A3 unusual for having higher ARI for industrial over
residential. Should be the same or lower.
216
Agree, review.
Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project – Southern Regional Model Scheme
Analysis of Submissions received in relation to regional content from the June-July 2013 Draft Planning Scheme Consultation – 29 October 2013
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Clause / Issue
From
Comment or Suggestion
Regional Project Response
Disposal
E.7.7.3
GCC
Stormwater Drainage and
Disposal
A3 (b): Should not say "or upgraded public SW system". Any
scenario can (theoretically) be accommodated in an upgraded
stormwater system, so should not be an acceptable solution.
Not agree.
If an upgraded system can accommodate the
stormwater, then it is ok as an acceptable solution.
Council can apply conditions.
This is a technical / engineering matter between the
proponent and the Council and there is no need to
subject this issue to the potential for third party
interference such as objections and appeals.
E.7.7.3
GCC
Stormwater Drainage and
Disposal
A3 (b): Says nothing about who will pay for an upgraded
system.
Explanation:
The provision doesn’t need to say who will pay for it.
The Planning Authority simply says it must be done via
condition of approval.
Assuming the Council does not want to pay for it, the
developer must.
E.7.7.3 A3 / A4
Stormwater Drainage and
Disposal
BC
One other comment I have is on clause E7.7.3/A3/A4. These
define minimum standards around the minor and major
storm. Our current requirements reflect these standards
(although strictly speaking our strategy requires an additional
allowance of 20% for climate change). My concern here is that
the Urban Drainage Bill 2013 is in its final draft. This
legislation will allow councils to def

HJO Contact Directory 3-14

Apixio Fact Sheet HCC Optimizer

Board of Directors Meeting Agenda

Download (11Kb)

Scholarship Cards - Take Care FALL 2014.pub

Horizon 2020 Info Day - INCONET

download pdf file - Battery Shores POA, Inc.

Site Plan - Rosehaven Homes

HCC NCDA HSS MEETING PROGRAMME OCT 22 2014 FINAL