AUSTRALIAN states have deregulated their planning systems using a
national blueprint advanced largely by the development industry. Tasmania
is the latest.

Planning system change is always disguised as reform, but the real intent is to advantage the development industry.

In Tasmania, this reform introduces a single statewide planning system. This allows the government to dictate planning provisions regardless of differences in local conditions and needs.

State provisions can easily be changed. In some states, standard statewide
provisions have been weakened over time to reduce citizen rights and local planning control.

The Tasmanian planning minister will be able to alter them without reference to Parliament, and potentially gain greater power from the Planning Commission and councils. It is yet to be seen whether the government will permit strong local policy to prevail over state policy.

Some states have allowed a wide range of applications to be assessed without need for permits under codes and by largely eliminating prohibited uses. The Tasmanian system has continued much of the former planning scheme content, but introduces easier development pathways.

An application for development or use need not be advertised if allowed without a permit or considered a permitted activity. Alternative pathways allow public comment and appeal rights, but these often reduce the level of control.

Serious problems are likely to arise from the content of planning provisions.
For example, while the main residential zone, the General Residential Zone,
mandates a minimum site area of 325 square metres and height and other controls for multi-dwelling units, no minimum density applies to land within 400m of a public transport stop or a business or commercial zone. This will open large urban areas to inadequately regulated multi-unit development.

The main rural zones allow many urban uses, including bulky goods stores, retailing, manufacturing and processing, business and professional services and tourist and visitor accommodation complexes.

This deregulation will attract commercial uses to the rural edges of cities and the most scenic landscape areas. Such uses should be located in cities or in rural towns to benefit local jobs instead of being placed as isolated enclaves on some of the state’s most beautiful landscapes.

Use and development standards will prove to be useless in protecting the
agricultural, environmental and landscape values of rural zones from
overdevelopment.

Fast tracking inappropriate developments will force the Tasmanian people to pay a high price for the individual enrichment of a favoured few.

Codes are a particular concern. The heritage code is intended to reduce the impact of urban development on heritage values.

However, performance criteria for demolition are vague and development standards criteria do not provide adequate protection.

The nomination of heritage precincts and places is variable, leaving many
inadequately protected.

The National Trust and other expert groups have raised similar concerns.
The potential of the Natural Assets and the Scenic Protection codes to lessen the impacts of some urban uses on rural and natural areas also will be compromised by vague language, limitations and omissions.

Interminable legal arguments will erupt over the meaning and application of these codes, with the inevitable result that development proposals will win out.

The State Government can learn from the disastrous consequences of other
deregulated planning systems. It should strengthen regulation and listen to the public to ensure a state system does not destroy much that will be vital for a prosperous and liveable future for citizens.

The Government argues the new system is vital to unlock economic potential and create jobs, but the state’s greatest economic strengths are the amenity and heritage of its natural and built environments. Destroy these and the state has no future.

While planning for the future is complex, the hidden agendas of planning reform are evident from the massive impacts from unregulated development in other states.

Fast tracking inappropriate developments will force the Tasmanian people to pay a high price for the individual enrichment of a favoured few.

Tasmania’s cities, towns, scenic landscapes and biodiversity are a state and national treasure. Lose them and the nation is diminished.

Michael Buxton is Professor Environment and Planning, RMIT University,
Melbourne.