Mr BAYLEY – Minister, I have a couple of questions about your attempt to move planning out of council processes into so‑called development assessment panels. I know you have a healthy slogan for this, and the example you gave recently I don’t think was a very good one. It was a development that was opposed, I think, or voted against by the council members, not because it’s a development, because they were all pro‑development councillors that voted against it. I think they voted against it because of the type of development.
Putting that aside, is it true that under this process, minister, the Minister for Planning, so yourself, can take a development assessment away from councils midway through their development assessment process if the developer doesn’t like the way it’s heading? Do you think that’s fair? Obviously, councils will expend a significant amount of resources, only for an application to be stripped away from them, and would you rule something like this out?
Mr ELLIS – Mr Bayley, I absolutely reject your characterisation of the Argyle Street development not being a good example of it. I would have thought that’s exactly the kind of example that’s important. Opposing something because of the kind of development that it is, when that kind of development is providing houses for women at risk of homelessness, clearly demonstrates that we need to take the politics out of planning. I thought that would be something we would agree on, but nevertheless we’re working to finalise the legislation that we will put out for consultation on the development assessment panels and then we will bring it into parliament and we will all have an opportunity to debate the ins and outs.
I would say absolutely that this will mean that development applications will be assessed on their merits without interference from matters of local government politics, because all too often we have seen proposals that meet the requirements of the Tasmanian Planning Scheme and recommended by expert planners being rejected by local government politicians. It’s something that’s holding back our state.
Mr BAYLEY – The question was whether the proposal for you as minister is to be able to strip an assessment out of a council process if a developer requests it because they’re not satisfied with that process?
Mr ELLIS – As I just said, we’re working to finalise the legislation and will put it out for consultation and then this House can have the debate on it, but certainly we think that matters that meet the requirements of the Tasmanian Planning Scheme and are recommended by expert planners should be the kind of things that get approved rather than being rejected by petty local government politics.
The proposed DAP framework will provide an objective independent assessment of development proposals against the Tasmanian Planning Scheme criteria by a panel appointed by the independent Tasmanian Planning Commission. The process will still include critical community consultation as exists in the current processes, but with the panel appointed by the Tasmanian Planning Commission making the final decision, not the council. The DAP model is strongly supported by industry backing developers and economic activity, despite potential localised NIMBYism who don’t want to see our state progress. I look forward to providing the bill for consultation at the earliest opportunity.
Mr BAYLEY – In the example you’ve given around the North Hobart property, obviously the proponent had the right to appeal and that’s currently going through the appeal process at the moment. It’s true, isn’t it, that this proposal will take away third-party rights of appeal, merit‑based rights of appeal, as currently proposed?
Mr ELLIS – We’re working through the legislation, Mr Bayley.
Mr BAYLEY – That’s the proposal, though.
Mr ELLIS – As I mentioned, we’re working through the legislation. Obviously that process was one that was driven by local politics. It was recommended for approval by the expert planners as it related to the Tasmanian Planning Scheme and that has delayed that work on that project significantly, so we think that having a Development Assessment Panel process will provide clearer, simpler and more predictable outcomes for people looking to get things done in our state, including building homes for vulnerable Tasmanian women.
