#SCRAPTHEDAP

Personalising your message creates a powerful impact with Parliamentarians.

The 2025 revised DAPs legislation is not significantly changed from the 2024 version that was refused by the parliament and retains all the key flaws. I oppose the creation of Development Assessment Panels (DAPs) and increasing ministerial power over the planning system, for the following reasons:

• The DAPs represent an alternate planning approval pathway allowing property developers to bypass local councils and communities. This fast-track process will remove elected councillors from having a say on the most controversial and destructive developments affecting local communities. Handpicked state appointed planning panels, conducted by the Tasmanian Planning Commission, will decide on development applications not our elected local councillors. Local concerns will be ignored in favour of developers who may not be from Tasmania.
  
  
• The Tasmanian Planning Commission is not independent – DAPs are hand-picked, without detailed selection criteria and objective processes. DAPs are inconsistent with the principles of open justice as they do not hold hearings that are open to any member of the public and lack capacity to manage conflicts of interest (as per the 2020 Independent Review). DAPs do not have to provide written reasons for their decision (making it difficult to seek judicial review). Community input will be less effective because it will be delayed until after the DAP has consulted (behind closed doors) with the developer and any relevant government agencies and adopted its draft decision.
  
  
• Research demonstrates DAPs are pro-development and pro-government, they rarely deeply engage with local communities, and they spend most of their time on smaller applications and take longer than local councils to make decisions.
  
  
• DAPs will make it easier to approve large scale contentious developments like the kunanyi/Mount Wellington cable car, high-rise in Hobart, Cambria Green and high-density subdivision like Skylands at Droughty Point and the proposed UTAS Sandy Bay campus re-development.
  
  
• Removes merit-based planning appeal rights via the planning tribunal on all the issues the community cares about like impacts on biodiversity; height, bulk, scale or appearance of buildings; impacts to streetscapes, and adjoining properties including privacy and overlooking; traffic, noise, smell, light and so much more. The Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (TASCAT) review of government decisions is an essential part of the rule of law and a democratic system of government based on ‘checks and balances’.
  
  
• Removing merits-based planning appeals removes the opportunity for mediation on development applications in the planning tribunal.
  
  
• Developments will only be appealable to the Supreme Court based on a point of law or process which have a narrow focus and are prohibitively expensive.
  
  
• Removing merits-based planning appeals has the potential to increase corruption, reduce good planning outcomes, favour developers and undermine democracy. The NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption recommended the expansion of merit-based planning appeals as a deterrent to corruption. Mainland experience demonstrates planning panels favour developers and undermine democratic accountability. Local planning panels, which are often dominated by members of the development sector, were created in NSW to stamp out corruption, but councillors from across the political spectrum say they favour developers and undermine democratic accountability. Mainland research demonstrates removing merits-based planning appeals has the potential to reduce good planning outcomes – including both environmental and social.
  
  
• Increased ministerial power over the planning system increases the politicisation of critical planning decisions such as rezoning and risk of corrupt decisions. The Planning Minister will decide if a development application meets the DAP criteria. The Minister will be able to force the initiation of planning scheme changes, but perversely, only when a local council has rejected such an application, threatening transparency and strategic planning.
  
  
• Eligibility criteria are so broad and undefined that it grants the Minister extraordinary power that is arbitrary and unchecked. The Minister can declare a development to be assessed by a DAP based on a ‘perceived conflict of interest’, ‘a real or perceived bias’, ‘the application relates to a development that may be considered significant’. The Planning Minister has political bias and can use this subjective criteria to intervene on virtually any development in favour of developers. 

NOTE: The scope of the DAPs includes a range of other subjective factors that are not guided by any clear criteria:

– Valuations of $10 million in cities and $5 million in other areas. 
– A determination by Homes Tasmania that an application includes social or affordable housing. There is no requirement for a proportion of the development to be for social or affordable housing. For example, it could be one house out of 200 that is affordable. 

• Poor justification – there is no problem to fix. Only about 1% of the approximately 12,000 council planning decisions go to appeal and Tasmania’s planning system is the fastest in Australia. In some years as many as 80% of appeals are resolved via mediation. The Government wants to falsely blame the planning system for stopping housing developments to cover its lack of performance in addressing the affordable housing shortage.
• Increases complexity in an already complex planning system. Why would we further increase an already complex planning system which is already making decisions quicker than any other jurisdiction in Australia?

2025 legislation not significantly changed

• The changes made to the DAPs legislation that was refused by the Parliament in November 2024 are not significant and all the key flaws remain. The changes made do not have any significant practical impact.
• One eligibility criterion has been removed, that a project is likely to be ‘controversial’, but the other equally broad and undefined criteria are retained (as listed above). There is no impact from this change because virtually any development can fit the remaining criteria.
• Removal of the option for the minister to transfer a development partway through a council assessment is not significant because a proponent can remove their development from council assessment before requesting the minister have it assessed by a DAP.
• The dollar value thresholds have been increased to $10 million and above in metro areas and $5 million and above in non-metro areas which is claimed will restrict the number of DAP applications. Projects under these values are still eligible under the other broad and undefined criteria.
• The Tasmanian Planning Commission will be able to issue guidelines to assist with applying the eligibility criteria, but this makes no difference as the Commission is not required to make the guidelines and the Minister only needs to ‘consider’ them.
• There has been an amendment to allow the DAPs to undertake mediation, but the Tasmanian Planning Commission is inexperienced in mediation and no clear process or rights have been established for objectors, unlike the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (TASCAT). The amendment does not allow the DAP approval to be decided by mediation just minor disputes in the process.

Say yes to a healthy democracy

• I call on you to ensure transparency, independence, accountability and public participation in decision-making within the planning system, as they are critical for a healthy democracy. Keep decision making local, rather than bypassing it, with opportunities for appeal. Abandon DAPs and instead invest in expertise to improve the local government system and existing planning processes by providing more resources to councils and enhancing community participation and planning outcomes. This will also help protect local jobs and keeping the cost of development applications down.
  
  
• I also call on you to prohibit property developers from making donations to political parties, enhance transparency and efficiency in the administration of the Right to Information Act 2009, and create a strong anti-corruption watchdog. 

Yours sincerely,

(Include your name)