CHAIR – Minister, I’m going to ask questions from the chair. You talked about the urban growth boundary and I’m just curious to know what you’re considering in that space.
Mr VINCENT – Some of that was done by the previous minister where they announced the extra expansion of the urban growth boundary to take in –
CHAIR – So it’s an expansion?
Mr VINCENT – It was an expansion there that was done in May this year was it?
Mr REID – This year, yes.
Mr VINCENT – A lot of that couldn’t be acted on because it didn’t fit with the land use strategy. A lot of it was in areas that were quite sensible, in areas around Hobart. The fact that we need to move with the land use strategy which will allow that to be freed up. When you read the TPPs, there is overarching comments in there about density and about urban growth to be reviewed so that we don’t keep getting sprawl. We look at the density in some of the areas and that will allow us to develop some of the corridors much stronger with a higher density than what we probably have looked at before. It’s going to make councils think twice about some of the development applications coming forward or developers about what they’ll be able to actually do with the land with density instead of just the normal ‘three-bedroom quarter-acre block’.
CHAIR – Just going back to the urban growth boundary, the idea that contains some of the growth, because we know that developing in areas where there isn’t infrastructure is costly and there is benefit to doing more medium-density development in areas, and I’m pleased to hear about the benefits of the standards that have been produced. Can you assure the committee that there won’t be unintentional consequences with urban growth, boundary sprawl?
Mr VINCENT – Yes, I know first-hand before coming into this role the expansion of the overgrowth boundary was more about identifying some of the areas in close within the boundaries of townships, that was sensible to do so, not a busting out of the outer area of the urban growth boundary, so that was sensible.
It’s something we really have to concentrate on because of that expansion of service. If the services aren’t there and you’ll see in the TPPs when you have a look at them, that subdivisions need to be looked at to the services that are there already, instead of developing areas outside of serviced areas. There has been some criticism from some developers that had land outside of the urban growth boundary wanting to do that.
The TPPs certainly make us think more before giving that the go ahead and have to tick a lot more boxes to make sure that it fits before that can happen. It is quite sensible, no guarantees of course, because everybody finds a way of pushing the boundaries, but it when you look at the TPPs, it does give you a lot of discretion to look at making sure that it fits within what you’re doing already.
Expansion into new areas is very expensive for councils, which means it’s very expensive for ratepayers and developers, of course. We’re very conscious of that at the moment and the growth corridors need to be looked at with a higher density before we start busting out any further.
CHAIR – It’s wearing a bit thin, actually, but not because of you, it’s the hour of the day. Minister, just continuing on in relation to the Regional Land Use Strategy, I’m very, very pleased to hear that that’s out for consultation. That seems like a big win. I hope that it delivers exactly what we want it to. Ms Johnston and I are very interested in making sure that we can utilise underutilised land within that area, particularly between Hobart and Glenorchy. I wonder what conversations you’re having with councils, with community organisations that are interested in ensuring that there is that land that can be basically unlocked for medium‑density housing; how are you making that happen in that area?
Mr VINCENT – Over the short period of the last couple of months, I’ve had some intermediate conversations with the councils I’ve been visiting. Mainly my focus has been on making sure the TPPs come into play and then the land use strategy and those discussions will happen now that we are going through their consultation period. I now have the triggers to be able to have more sensible conversations with a mechanism for being able to work through that.
CHAIR – That mechanism may change that zoning within. I’m interested, as you’re aware, of having possibly a pilot project, as was proposed by the Planning Institute of Australia’s Tasmanian branch, in that that transit corridor.
Mr VINCENT – This is a developing area that will happen. There will be a lot more information after because we will be in a different phase of the planning around greater Hobart. In the short time I’ve been in the role, I haven’t yet had a lot of those discussions, but talking to a lot of the different groups involved and that will accelerate.
CHAIR – Could you use that as a pilot to utilise elsewhere?
Mr VINCENT – Yes, there will be a lot more focus on that. We have the business case being looked at the moment for the rapid bus mechanism out through the corridor, out through Glenorchy. That will trigger a whole heap of different conversations that we need to consider and look at. I have been out to the showgrounds to look at the land there, and there are different views on the amount of dwellings that we could put on a section of land like that and it’s a maturing conversation that we will have to be a vital part of. Like I said, 800 metres either side of the transport corridor is where the more intense or density levels need to be looked at.
CHAIR – For clarification, the transit corridor: are you talking about the railway line or are you talking about the road, or what are you identifying as the transport corridor?
Mr VINCENT – All three are a significant part of the future. They’re there. That’s what we have, that’s what we have to work with. It’s not just a case of looking at one, but how it may be in between the two. It’s all open for consideration and a rethink of how it needs to happen, and we have to do a lot of work with council on that.
