Healthy Landscapes

Landscape Protection

The purpose of the Landscape Conservation Zone is to provide for the protection, conservation and management of landscape values on private land. However, it does not provide for the protection of significant natural values as was the original intent of the Landscape Conservation Zone, articulated on page 79 of the Draft State Planning Provisions Explanatory Document. With a Zone Purpose limited to protecting ‘landscape values’, Landscape Conservation Zone is now effectively a scenic protection zone for private land. 

Biodiversity Protection

Exemptions in the Natural Assets Code (e.g. Agriculture, Commercial and Residential Zones) and up-to-date mapping mean many areas of native vegetation/habitat will not be assessed or protected, impacting biodiversity and leading to the loss of valuable urban trees.

The Natural Assets Code not only fails to promote sustainable development, maintain ecological processes, and further biodiversity conservation, it also fails to achieve its stated purpose. The Natural Assets Code also fails to provide an aspiration to improve biodiversity conservation and can only lead to a reduction in biodiversity and degradation of natural assets.

The Natural Assets Code fails to meet the objectives and requirements of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993. It does not adequately provide for the protection of important natural values (particularly in certain zones) and requires detailed review.

A key objective of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 is to promote and further the sustainable development of natural and physical resources, and as an integral part of this, maintain ecological processes and conserve biodiversity. More specifically, section 15 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 requires the State Planning Provisions, including the Natural Assets Code, to further this objective.

As currently drafted, the Natural Assets Code reduces natural values to a procedural consideration and undermines the maintenance of ecological processes and conservation of biodiversity. As a result, the Natural Assets Code fails to adequately reflect or implement the objectives of Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 and fails to meet the criteria for drafting the State Planning Provisions.

There are also significant jurisdictional and technical issues with the Natural Assets Code, including:

• poor integration with other regulations, particularly the Forest Practices System, resulting in loopholes and the ability for regulations to be played off against each other;
• significant limitations with the scope of natural assets and biodiversity values considered under the Natural Assets Code, with landscape function and ecosystem services and non-threatened native vegetation, species and habitat largely excluded;
• wide-ranging exemptions which further jurisdictional uncertainty and are inconsistent with maintenance of ecological processes and biodiversity conservation;
• extensive exclusions in the application of the Natural Assets Code through Zone exclusion relating to the Agriculture, Industrial, Commercial and Residential Zones and limiting biodiversity consideration to mapped areas based on datasets not designed for this purpose. As a consequence, many areas of native vegetation and habitat will not be assessed or protected, impacting biodiversity and leading to the loss of valuable urban and rural trees;
• poorly defined terms resulting in uncertainty;
• a focus on minimising and justifying impacts rather than avoiding impacts and conserving natural assets and biodiversity;
• inadequate buffer distances for waterways, particularly in urban areas; and
• watering down the performance criteria to ‘having regard to’ a range of considerations rather than meeting these requirements, enabling the significance of impacts to be downplayed and dismissed.

Consequently, the Natural Assets Code not only fails to promote sustainable development, maintain ecological processes and further biodiversity conservation, it also fails to achieve its stated purpose. The Natural Assets Code as drafted also fails to provide an aspiration to improve biodiversity conservation and can only lead to a reduction in biodiversity and degradation of natural assets.

In 2016, the Tasmanian Planning Commission via its report, Draft State Planning Provisions Report: A report by the Tasmanian Planning Commission as required under section 25 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, 9 December 2016, recommended that the Natural Assets Code be scrapped in its entirety, with a new Natural Assets Code developed after proper consideration of the biodiversity implications of proposed exemptions, the production of adequate, State-wide vegetation mapping, and consideration of including protection of drinking water catchments.

The then-Planning Minister Peter Gutwein rejected that recommendation. Some amendments were made to the Natural Assets Code (including allowing vegetation of local significance to be protected), but no review of exemptions was undertaken. PMAT understands that while no state-wide mapping was provided, the Government provided $100,000 to each of the three regions to implement the State Planning Provisions. The southern regional councils pooled resources to engage an expert to prepare biodiversity mapping for the whole region.

Note that despite concerns raised by TasWater, no further amendments were made to protect drinking water catchments.

Summary of key issues and priority recommendations

PMAT engaged environmental planner Dr den Exter to review the Natural Assets Code. Click here for a list of key issues and key recommendations to improve the Natural Assets Code presented both in summary and in detail.

Dr Nikki den Exter completed her PhD thesis investigating the role and relevance of land use planning in biodiversity conservation in Tasmania. Dr den Exter also works as an Environmental Planner with local government and has over 15 years’ experience in the fields of biodiversity conservation, natural resource management and land use planning. As both a practitioner and a researcher, Dr den Exter offers a unique perspective on the importance of land use planning in contributing to biodiversity conservation. The detailed submission was also reviewed by PMAT’s volunteer Natural Assets Code Review Sub-Committee. We acknowledge and thank the Sub-Committee’s planning experts, consultants and community advocates with relevant experience and knowledge.

Scenic Landscape Protection

The purpose of the Scenic Protection Code is to recognise and protect landscapes that are identified as important for their scenic values.

The Scenic Protection Code can be applied through two overlays: scenic road corridor overlay and the scenic protection area overlay. The Scenic Protection Code applies only to land within the overlay area. 

PMAT considers the Scenic Protection Code fails to protect our highly valued scenic landscapes. There is an inability to deliver the objectives through this Scenic Protection Code due to certain exemptions afforded to use and development that allow for detrimental impact on landscape values. Concerns regarding the Scenic Protection Code have also been provided to the Tasmanian Planning Commission from the Glamorgan Spring Bay Council on the State Planning Provisions in accordance with section 35G of LUPAA.

Not only does the Scenic Protection Code fail to protect scenic values, PMAT understands that in many instances councils are not even applying the Scenic Protection Code to their municipal areas. This means that scenic landscape values will not be considered in development assessment. Given that Tasmania’s scenic landscapes are one of our greatest assets, this is not strategic.

Local councils should be given financial support and encouraged to undertake the assessment of their scenic landscape values so they can populate the Scenic Protection Code within their municipal area via either their Local Provisions Schedule process or via planning scheme amendments.

Break O’Day Council Case Study

In the absence of a comprehensive scenic landscape assessment by the Break O’Day Council to inform the implementation of the Tasmanian Planning Scheme (via the Break O’Day Local Provisions Schedule), the North East Bioregional Network engaged Geoscene International to assess the scenic landscape values of north east Tasmania including the municipality of Break O’Day. As the report, the Scenic Protection Assessment: North East Tasmania, was community and not council generated, it was disregarded as expert evidence by the Tasmanian Planning Commission during the development of Break Oday Council’s Local Provisions Schedule process. This story demonstrates there is no pathway for the community to advocate for scenic protection, other than through local councils. If councils are not advocating for scenic landscape protection, then the community has no pathway.