Ms BURNET (Clark) – Honourable Speaker, I rise to speak about urban growth boundary changes. Last week, the Minister for Housing and Planning, Mr Ellis, using his ministerial powers, approved an extension of southern Tasmania’s urban growth boundaries by 615 hectares, citing this as a passage to unlocking housing developments in Rokeby, Sorell, Brighton, Margate and beyond.
Of course we need more homes. Our housing crisis has clearly reached record highs this year with over 5,000 Tasmanians on the waitlist for social and affordable homes. We can think of better, more creative, more sustainable ways to solve the housing crisis. Minister Ellis said the changes could provide 10,000 additional homes and this is refuted by many people, including Peter McGlone from the Tasmanian Conservation Trust who refutes the number of houses that the minister, Mr Ellis, suggests can be built.
One example is the Richardson Road proposal, which was originally refused by Clarence Council, but apparently minister Ellis knows best. Is he delivering housing need or is he responding to developer greed? He certainly is not delivering to the region’s regional land use strategy because he has dropped the ball on that. It has not been delivered. It is well out of date, and this is a travesty, again, of strategic planning. I quote minister Ellis:
This release of land in the southern region sets us up for significant and sustainable growth.
Which is what he said on the ABC. However, this is not according to professionals from the Planning Institute and the Australian Institute of Architects Tasmanian Chapter. I will quote from their submission in relation to the urban growth boundary proposed update of March 2025. The institute says in its response that he does not believe that the urban growth boundary should be increased. They acknowledge that then the government must enable the provision of more homes, done in a way that retains what makes Hobart a unique and desirable place to live.
Other quotes talk about why the urban growth boundary expansion would be would have negative impacts. These points are: because of increased costs to taxpayers to provide infrastructure; increased disadvantage to future occupants living on the outskirts of our city; increased negative health impacts due to proximity to amenities or lack thereof; increased traffic congestion; social isolation; and increased environment environmental impacts.
There are also solutions in the Institute of Architects’ submission. They talk about encouraging densification of inner-city areas and they know, they hear from developers, that it is not always financially viable due to land costs, site-specific conditions, planning requirements and approval complexities. That does not mean that the government should not be looking at finding solutions for inner‑city development. Instead of slapping in new developments on the urban fringe which lack critical public transport, infrastructure and access to amenities such as schools, hospitals, and grocery shops, let us invest in other hidden gems, such as the Hobart to Glenorchy corridor as proposed by the Tasmanian chapter of the Planning Institute of Australia recently. If we look at the rail corridor, we have often talked about rail versus what form of transport. Over 15 years there have been 14 separate studies in relation to energising this area.
It is about time that the government acts, the government was more strategic in their framework for planning for sustainable growth – sustainable for the environment rather than on the fringes where there is this conflict of environmental protection. We could have a win‑win by incentivising or having more development in the inner city.
Time expired.
