The photo above shows a warehouse in Derrimut, in Melbourne’s North, containing 10,000 tonnes of mainly plastic from Victorian and Tasmanian recycling bins. Carly Whitington, a spokesperson for Marwood Construction, the owner of the warehouse, told the Sunday Tasmanian last December there were 10,000 tonnes of mainly plastic in this warehouse that the now-defunct company SKM Recycling had put there two years before
The Tasmanian Conservation Trust has been working for over 50 years to preserve and restore biodiversity in the state. We are hiring a casual or part time administrative assistant. The successful applicant will be based in Hobart at the TCT office, and will be part of a small responsive team, working closely with community groups, government bodies and individuals to achieve conservation outcomes for Tasmania.
Peter McGlone, Director, Tasmanian Conservation Trust
Some of you may have read the so-called ‘Fact Check’ on he Planning Policy Unit’s website (see link) that claims to be responding to “incorrect advice and interpretation of the Major Projects Bill (MPB) that is circulating in the community”.
https://planningreform.tas.gov.au/major-projects-fact-check/fact-check
Far from being a “Fact Check”, as claimed, the document is a dangerously inaccurate and misleading.
The purpose of the PPU’s document is to distract us, make us unsure of our arguments and get us caught up in detailed technical or irrelevant arguments – so don’t get caught in that trap.
The PPU misrepresents or avoids commenting on many of our arguments, makes false claims about key elements of the MPB and uses misleading or irrelevant comparisons with the PORS legislation.
SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO THE PLANNING POLICY UNIT’S DOCUMENT
Go to the end of this document for a full critique: TCT ‘Fact Check’ on the Planning Policy Unit’s ‘Fact Check’ document.
The Planning Policy Unit has avoided commenting on some of our most powerful criticisms e.g.:
- that the major project process can compel the TPC to amend a planning scheme (think Cambria) to ensure it conforms with an approved major project;
- the removal of the highrise clause that was in the second version of the bill; and
- the government still haven’t provided a justification for the MP legislation or explained what is wrong with the Projects of Regional Significance (PORS) legislation.
PPU’s incorrect statements and misleading arguments
The Planning Policy Unit has made outrageous and incorrect statements in responding to some of our most serious concerns. For example the PPU have claimed that the lack of appeal rights is not significant because the Panel’s hearing performs the same or similar function as an appeal (point 5).
The PPU twice claim the minister’s power to declare projects is limited by the requirement that it meets the guidelines but these guidelines are not mandatory (the TPC may make them) and the minister only has to ‘have regard’ to them and does not have to follow them (points 1 and 8).
The PPU claims incredibly that there will be “greater independent scrutiny and more public process than normal Local Government assessment” (point 7). In defending this position the PPU do not mention that there is no right to appeal approvals in the MP process, which is the critical element of independent scrutiny. The independence of the DAP members must be questioned as there is no guarantee that any will be TPC members and the Minister has a key role in appointing one member (point 1).
The PPU claims the MP process is not a fast track because of the length the MP assessment process (point 6). It is a lengthy process but this does not in any way make up for the key processes that are missed e.g. no rights of appeal and no vote by your elected councillors.
The Planning Policy Unit asks ‘Why do we need a Panel?’ and ‘Why can’t the TPC assess it?’. The PPU simply says that it is retaining the Panels that are allowed for under the PORS process and doesn’t answer the question ‘Why do we need a Panel?’ (point 3). It fails to provide a justification for the Panel replacing the TPC in assessing and approving MPs (point 3).
The PPU justifies taking major projects assessment and approval away from local government by saying that the TPC currently has authority to amend planning schemes and assess and approve Projects of State Significance (point 7). Having the TPC responsible for these existing processes and decisions in no way justifies taking major projects assessment and approvals away from local councils.
PPU mis-represents our position
The supposed Fact Check document is full of opinion masquerading as fact and misrepresents many of our claims. Critically the PPU document does not reference any document that it claims to be correcting.
The PPU refers to arguments that no one seems to be raising e.g. that the normal permits from the EPA, Heritage Council etc are not required (point 4) while avoiding responding to our key concern that local councils will be cut out of having a say over approval of the MP.
The PPU claim that we have said the minister has too much power and insinuates that we have claimed the minister makes the final approval (point 1). Our argument is that the minister has too much power in the critical first step of declaring a MP. We have not said the minister is involved in approving the major project.
The Planning Policy Unit dismisses our concerns about the TPC being sidelined (point 2). The PPU claim that there is little or no difference between the TPC and DAP doing an assessment and approval when we think they are very different institutions. The PPU fails to respond to our key complaint that there is no guarantee that any TPC members are on the DAP.
PPU’s comparison of Major Projects process to the Projects of Regional Significance Process is irrelevant and incorrect
The PPU Fact Check persistently compares features of the Major Projects Bill to the PORS process (point 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8) in an attempt to justify the MPB. How similar or different the PORS and MPB processes are is not a relevant argument. We simply oppose the MPB and see much that is wrong with the PORS as well. The PPU fail to point out that the PORS process has never been used or attempt to explain why.
The PPU has falsely claimed that key elements of the PORS and MP are the same when this is incorrect. Critically, the PORS criteria are limited to regional projects whereas the MP criteria apply to projects of regional and state significance (point 8).
Major Projects process could replace Projects of State Significance (POSS)
While the PPU seem to argue that the MPB is making some minor refinements to the PORS processes this understates the implications of the legislation. One consequence of the MPB that the PPU do not address is that not only would the major projects permit process replace the PORS process but they could also displace the current planning process for Projects of State Significance (POSS) under the State Policies and Projects Act 1993 (Tas). That is because, arguably, any project that might be considered to be of state significance could also be eligible for a major project declaration under the Major Projects Bill. A key difference between the POSS process and the proposed process relating to major projects is that a POSS project is of no effect until approved by both Houses of Parliament. There is no equivalent provision for parliamentary oversight in the Major Projects Bill.
Letter to the editor
The Mercury
Coronavirus crisis is not a reason to abandon balance and fairness in planning decisions
In his talking point article Minister for Planning Roger Jaensch claims the 'Major Projects process provides no fast-tracks, short cuts or easy routes, and it cannot be applied to any project' (Mercury 30 April 2020). This is wrong. Under the draft legislation, the community has no right to appeal the approval of a major project. Your elected Local Councillors have no role in the approval or refusal of a major project. Planning scheme amendments (e.g. Cambria) can be forced on councils and communities and the Tasmanian Planning Commission 'must' amend the scheme to fit the approved project. These are three enormous short cuts or easy routes.
Our legal advice is that the eligibility criteria are so vague and open to the Minister's interpretation that virtually any project normally assessed by a local council could be declared a major project, down to and including a subdivision.
In regard to projects like Cambria, skyscrapers and Lake Malbena, the Minister says they would be 'unable or highly unlikely to be considered for the Major Projects process'. 'Highly unlikely' won't convince most people, especially as the legislation provides no checks to the minister, whose 'opinion' regarding eligibility is paramount. The TPC 'may' produce guidelines but the minister must only 'have regard' to them and is not required to abide by them.
While the minister says he 'has no plans' to refer the Mt Wellington cable car to the Major Projects process, he does not say it would be ineligible. Nor does he promise to amend the legislation to make it ineligible. Clearly the minister could change his plans and declare the cable car a major project or the proponent could ask the minister to declare it. The minister has not ruled out either option.
The Minister claims that 'assessments of Major Projects do not 'bypass' the Tasmanian Planning Commission or any existing regulators', but this is exactly what will happen. Local councils are regulators and they are cut out of the decision to approve or refuse a major project. The Development Assessment Panel does the assessment and makes the final decision and the Commission only appoints the DAP members.
The Minister claims that once the minister has declared a major project that their role in the process ends but this is wrong in one important respect. The Minister may require the Commission to appoint one person with 'particular qualifications or experience' to the DAP which could guarantee one person gets the job.
If introduced the Major Projects Bill would remove any element of balance, fairness and democracy from planning decisions. The current crisis should not be used to justify such draconian changes.
Peter McGlone
Director
Tasmanian Conservation Trust
PETER MCGLONE: Draft planning legislation gives too much say to ministers and takes it from councils and communities
April 24, 2020 7:00am
DEVELOPMENT Fast-tracking not needed. Picture: MATT THOMPSON
WITH Will Hodgman’s retirement, Peter Gutwein’s planning agenda is being revealed with an assault on the Tasmanian Planning Commission plus unprecedented new Major Projects legislation.
Premier Gutwein has baulked at amalgamations, but the Major Projects legislation shows he wants to take major planning decisions from local council and limit the community’s influence on them. We don’t need more major projects or fast-tracking powers — this legislation must be abandoned.
The Major Projects legislation provides the minister with power to declare a project a Major Project, which takes it out of the normal local council planning process. The legislation does not constrain the minister in any way. The Tasmanian Planning Commission may produce guidelines but, even if they do, the minister only has to consider them and doesn’t have to follow them.
Any project refused by a council or the Planning Appeals Tribunal could be declared a Major Project and potentially approved. Used in this way, the legislation makes the Planning Appeal Tribunal largely irrelevant.
The Major Projects legislation allows virtually any development that would normally go to a council, from a subdivision to a pulp mill, to be declared a Major Project and assessed and approved outside normal council planning process. Eligibility criteria are so broad and open to interpretation by the minister that the minister can justify any project as a Major Project. The ineligibility criteria are so hard to meet that virtually no development could be ineligible.
All the most controversial projects could be fast-tracked through this legislation: Cambria on the east coast; skyscrapers in Hobart and Launceston; the Westbury prison; developments in the world heritage area; and cable cars proposed for Mt Wellington, Mt Roland and Cataract Gorge.
The community and its elected councillors will be sidelined. The Major Projects legislation allows the minister to take developments away from local council. Your elected councillors will not have a say over approval of Major Projects, regardless of the impact on their local communities. The local community will have no right to appeal against approval of a Major Project and will have limited right to have input.
The previous version of the Major Projects legislation included a clause that addressed community concerns about high-rise developments — but this has been removed from the latest draft. The Fragrance Group’s Collins St skyscraper, that Hobart City Council refused last year, could come back and be fast-tracked through the Major Projects process. The Gorge Hotel that was approved by the Launceston City Council, then refused on appeal, could come back as a Major Project.
The Tasmanian Planning Commission will be sidelined. Contrary to what the State Government has said, the independent Tasmanian Planning Commission will not be assessing and approving Major Projects. All the power to assess and approve developments is given to a Development Assessment Panel that may include no Tasmanian Planning Commission person.
The only safeguard that exists is that the development assessment panel members must be approved by the independent Tasmanian Planning Commission, but this could change after the government’s current review of the commission.
Under the proposed legislation, planning schemes amendments can be forced on councils and communities.
A Major Project can be approved that is inconsistent with a planning scheme and, after the permit is issued, the Tasmanian Planning Commission must amend the planning scheme to remove any inconsistency.
The proponents of Cambria may use this path..
If developers have planning scheme amendments refused by the Tasmanian Planning Commission, they could go through the Major Projects process and have the commission’s decision overturned. The legislation subverts the role of the commission in the same way as it subverts the Planning Appeals Tribunal.
The State Government has justified the new Major Projects legislation by saying it retains many elements of the existing Projects of Regional Significance process.
The 2009 PORS process is seriously flawed, and this is why it has never been used. The Major Projects legislation is much worse and cannot be supported. The government says the Major Projects process is very lengthy, but this in no way makes up for all of its fundamental flaws.
The government has not made the case that new Major Projects powers are needed.
We have Projects of State Significance legislation which is a credible process for large and complex projects, and was successfully used to approve the Basslink cable. We don’t need more Major Projects or fast-tracking powers.
Submissions to the draft Major Projects legislation are due on May 15.
Peter McGlone is director of the Tasmanian Conservation Trust.
PS If this makes you angry then please make a submission by 15 may using the TCT’s easy to use online submission guide:
http://www.tasconservation.org.au/major-projects
Last week the Planning Appeals Tribunal issued an amended planning permit for a Recreational Vehicle (RV) park at Koonya on the Tasman Peninsula. The permit included a number of very important conditions that the appellant and joined parties won through a lengthy mediation with the proponent. I am proud to have been the advocate for the appellant and joined parties in the mediation and to have helped negotiate outcomes that have very real benefits for people’s lives and the local environment.
If you and your community are facing undesirable developments, the planning appeals tribunal exists for you, and the TCT are here to assist.
The state government has brought back its Major Projects Legislation for a third time after withdrawing earlier drafts in 2017 and again just before the state election in 2018 – only this draft is much worse. The state government should have got the message that the community opposes any additional fast tracking legislation to give a special deal for big, damaging and controversial developments.
The Tasmanian Conservation Trust is looking for a part-time ‘Fundraising and Community Engagement Coordinator’ to work in its Hobart office. The position is 2.5 days per week. Annual salary is $31,229 plus on-costs.
Applications must be made via email to jobs@tct.org.au
UPDATE: the new deadline for applications is 10am Monday February 24th 2020
Applications must include a CV/resume and a response to the selection criteria in the Position Description.
For any questions please contact Peter McGlone on 0406 380545 or email peter@tct.org.au
ROBYN MCNICOL: Spectacular Arm End, slated for a golf course development, is being overtaken by boxthorn weed while lease information is withheld
THE announcement by the State Government that it would not release the contents of leases over reserved land comes as no surprise to Re Imagine the End (RITE).
The Tasmanian Conservation Trust’s (TCT) interests in housing relates to: urban sprawl causing loss of bushland and farmland and increasing carbon emissions from transport; inappropriate infill or high rise housing threatening urban green spaces and residential amenity; and increased carbon emissions and broader ecological footprint from over-sized and energy inefficient houses.
