pa 2 - meander.tas.gov.au · pa 2. from: karen murray sent: 19 dec 2018 23:02:34 +1100 to: planning...

Version: 1, Version Date: 21/12/2018Document Set ID: 1149882 PA 2

From: Anthony HarrisSent: 20 Dec 2018 12:39:44 +1100To: Planning @ Meander Valley CouncilSubject: LPS SubmissionAttachments: LPS MV submission.rtf

To General ManagerMr Martin GillMeander Valley Council, Westbury 7303

Please find attached my submission re: Local Provisions Schedule (LPS) for the Westbury Low Density Residential Zone

Cheers, Anthony Harris


Submission on behalf of Blackhills Develpments Pty Ltd

- Anthony Harris

To the General Manager,

Mr Martin Gill

Meander Valley Council. Westbury 7303.

Re: Meander Valley Council Draft Local Provisions Schedule.

I write in support for the existing Draft Meander Valley Council Local Provisions Schedule (LPS) in particular the Westbury Low Density Residential Zone. I believe the Draft (LPS) supports local values and are appropriate for the Zone with provision of subdivisions having minimum lot sizes of 5000 m2.

Westbury township has great historic significance and aesthetic appeal to many visitors and residents. There is a strong sense of community that values the existing qualities of services and facilities. For these to be maintained we need contiued growth. Allowing further subdivisions will enhance the potential for further population growth and support the school, facilities and businesses.

The township is unique in many ways as we already have a large area that has existing titles with a range of lot sizes.

As many of these allotments are in 2Ha titles then subdividing into 4 with a minimum 5000m2 will retain the existing square pattern with more space around individual houses. Retaining hedge rows also provides privacy for many individual lots facing roadways.

We need to retain this potential for further development so as to attract residents and remain affordable whether 2Ha or 5000m2.


From: Jeff CarinsSent: 20 Dec 2018 04:37:45 +0000To: Meander Valley Council EmailSubject: Draft local provision scheduleAttachments: 20181220154202142.pdf

Dear sir, attached is my submission with regard the discussions regarding the planning scheme.Regards Jeff Carins -----Original Message-----From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, 20 December 2018 3:42 PMTo: Jeff CarinsSubject: Your scanned document This E-mail was sent from "ROBERTS-LONG-MPC4503" (MP C4503). Scan Date: 12.20.2018 15:42:02 (+1100)Queries to: [email protected]


mailto:[email protected]

From: John DentSent: 19 Dec 2018 13:10:53 +1100To: Planning @ Meander Valley CouncilSubject: LPS representation Westbury SAPAttachments: img-Z19125615-0001.pdf

Hi Jo, Please find attached a representation in regard to your LPS. Can you please confirm that you have received this. Regards, John DentDirector and Registered Land SurveyorPHONE: +61 3 6331 4099 (Launceston)MOB: 0408 133 656P.O. Box 2843/23 Brisbane Street, Launceston, Tasmania 7250www.pda.com.au The information contained in this e-mail message and any attached files may be the subject of legal professional privilege. Any form of review, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution and/or publication of the information in this e-mail, other than by the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments.


http://www.pda.com.au/

From: Karen MurraySent: 20 Dec 2018 23:05:14 +1100To: Planning @ Meander Valley CouncilSubject: Public Exhibition of the Draft Meander Valley Local Provisions Schedule for the Tasmanian Planning Scheme - Westbury Low Density Residential Zone.

20\12\2018

Dear Mr Gill,

I, Mrs Beryl Murray of 96 Suburb Road, Westbury Tasmania would like to make a representation to the Draft Local Provisions Schedule for the Tasmanian Planning Scheme in particular the Westbury Low Density Residential Zone.

As a long term resident of Westbury and an original owner of land in this particular area of Westbury I believe some changes need to be made to the Low Density Residential Planning Scheme to preserve the character and uniqueness of this particular area.

I have lived, raised a family, ran a farm, enjoyed the peace and tranquillity of this area - originally known as Queenstown /Pensioner's Bush for 50 plus years. The beautiful hawthorn hedgerows have provided my livestock and crops with protection from all types of weather and the dirt roads around my property have enabled myself, family and friends to ride /train/exercise our horses, walk our dogs, move our sheep, ride our bikes with little interruption of traffic. How times have changed. And not for the better. Most residents in the area are respectful when there is activity on the roads - unfortunately due to the now busyness of the area there are some that don't have that respect.

In the past six months, there have been a number of Planning Applications to subdivide these unique 5 acre blocks which I, along with other neighbours and residents have objected to. This is because these 5 acre blocks WERE NEVER TO BE SUBDIVIDED. This has been passed down through the ages. I, along with others believe that by allowing these types of subdivisions to occur, the unique lifestyle, character, heritage and ambience of the area will be forever lost.

Many people purchase these blocks for their own personal space, their own escape to the country, to run a business, have some animals etc. By allowing these types of subdivisions we will all be living on top of each other. I believe this particular area is being urbanised and that there are more suitable areas closer to the town centre for this to occur.

In a short period of time I have witnessed the heritage of this area being brutalised - example: an original 1850's Military Pensioners Cottage, complete with 5 acres, 100ft convict built and brick lined water well (the only one left in the area).....SUBDIVIDED, an original 1850's Military Pensioners Cottage belonging to Retired Military Pensioner Thomas Lovelock.....DEMOLISHED, hawthorn hedgerows COMPLETELY REMOVED off a property, double storey dwellings CONSTRUCTED which OBSTRUCT


neighbours views of the surrounding countryside and Great Western Tier Ranges, inappropriate and unnecessary SUBDIVISION of land in close proximity to my property. Is this enough information to tell you that no-one cares about the heritage and history of this area?

A Google search of Westbury, Tasmania, most websites speak of Westbury as having that historic English charm and 19th century ambience, surrounded by hedgerows and open fields and the largest military community in Tasmania. A quick drive around our area and that English feel is rapidly diminishing - those beautiful 5 acre blocks that were once granted to the Military Pensioners SUBDIVIDED into pieces, vehicles everywhere and hideous dwellings constructed.

I am fortunate to own some of these unique 5 acre blocks and feel privileged to own a piece of history - clearly others don't.

I would like to recommend the following changes :the minimum lot size be increased in the Specific Area Plan to 1 hectare (current size is 5000m2) due to the uniqueness and history of the area as stated above that a prohibition on the multiple dwellings provision be also included overriding the State Planning Provisions special protection of all the hawthorn hedgerows in the entire Meander Valley Municipalityspecial protection of the unmade reserve roads around my area that multiple dwellings on 5 acres is inappropriate given the uniqueness of this particular area, this also includes distances between dwellings and building heights

I believe that I have clearly stated why I and many others have chosen to live where we do and why this particular area of Westbury should be afforded Special Protection e.g Area of Outstanding Natural Importance. I do hope that these changes be seriously considered by both the Meander Valley Council and the Tasmanian Planning Commission for the preservation of Westbury.

Yours Sincerely,

Beryl Murray Contact number: 0488 037 387

Please note that this email was sent by Ms Karen Murray (Daughter) on behalf of Mrs Beryl Murray.


Maryann Cresswell

88 Reid Street East Westbury 7303

0418 510 320 [email protected]

21st December 2018

Dear Mr Gill,

I am writing to you in response to the letter received from the Meander Valley Council regarding Westbury Low Density Residential Zoning.

I am against the changes sort.

I spent my money investing in the township of Westbury in the Meander Valley region, when I decided to purchase my property and establishing my residence. I wanted acreage to pursue my equestrian interests. I bought my property on Reid Street East as it is situation on a No through Road. The peace and tranquility of living on the fringe of a regional town is pertinent to me. I enjoy the hedgerows and wide verges of the streets and roads of Westbury for recreational purposes. The distance between neighbors is very important to me.

I do hope the Meander Valley Council can recognize the desires of their residents and not change the zoning that concerns my property.

Warm regards,

Maryann Cresswell

PA 2

David Smink and Maryann Cresswell 29 Moore Street, Westbury | 0438 323 405 or 0418 510 320

21st December 2018

Meander Valley Council Westbury

Dear Mr Gill,

I am writing to you in response to the letter received from the Meander Valley Council regarding Westbury Low Density Residential Zoning.

David and I are against the changes sort by council.

We spent our money investing in the township of Westbury in the Meander Valley region, when we decided to purchase our property. We want acreage to pursue our equestrian interests. We bought the property of 29 Moore Street in Westbury as it in a quiet location, and don’t have neighbors close by looking over our fence. The peace and tranquility of living on the fringe of a regional town is pertinent to us. I enjoy the hedgerows and wide verges of the streets and roads of Westbury for recreational purposes. The distance between neighbors is very important to us.

I do hope the Meander Valley Council can recognize the desires of their residents and not change the zoning that concerns our property.

Sincerely,

David Smink and Maryann Cresswell

PA 2

From: Karen MurraySent: 19 Dec 2018 23:02:34 +1100To: Planning @ Meander Valley CouncilSubject: Exhibition of the draft Meander Valley Local Provisions Schedule for the Tasmanian Planning Scheme - Westbury Low Density Residential Zone

I, Mr John Donaldson of 96 Allotment Parade, Westbury Tasmania 7303 would like to make a representation to the draft Local Provisions Schedule for the Tasmanian Planning Scheme in particular to the Westbury Low Density Residential Zone.

When I purchased my 5 acre block going on 16 years ago from Beryl and the late Bruce Murray, I was informed by the Meander Valley Council the area was zoned semi-rural, low density and the blocks WERE NEVER TO BE SUBDIVIDED. Part of this was because of the historical and heritage value placed on these blocks as they provided a unique lifestyle for anyone wishing to build a residence on them. These 5 acre blocks allow a family or an individual to set up and be self-supported without living in their neighbours' backyards, without fear of causing hassles regarding noise and create gardens what and how they like as well as enjoying their animals, pets etc and vice-versa.

What price do you put on this situation? - and they (the blocks) are the last in this State.

Some months after I purchased my property I was approached by my Western neighbour, the late Mr Allan Richards, who asked me if I would like to buy half of his 5 acres as his place was to large for him to manage. My reply to him was the BLOCKS COULD NEVER BE SUBDIVIDED. His answer to me was that after receiving advice from the Meander Valley Council, that I could purchase half his property as I was an adjoining neighbour but his saleable land had to become part of my own 5 acre title and I could NEVER build a residence on it. For years I thought this was good as it meant the blocks CAN NEVER BE SUBDIVIDED.

A number of years ago I saw other properties in close proximity to my own being subdivided and up to 3 dwellings being erected on them.

How did this happen? Were the rules slightly bent or conveniently broken raising concerns that our unique lifestyle and history were under threat and dramatic change - for what? The mighty dollar on a so called trumped-up investment plan by people who seemed to have no thought for our Westbury heritage.

Has any thought been given as to the changes required to the infrastructure if developers decided to buy up and sit on all the vacant 5 acre blocks? Drainage and road access are at their limits now, an increase in dwellings will require expensive works to combat this.

Another question to be raised, concerning this report, is that most 5 acre block residents realise that this lifestyle of semi-rural, low density housing requires a bit of give and take


towards each other, as to their requirements regarding animal feed times and the use of farm vehicles.

My recommendations for the draft are as follows :

1- that the minimum lot size be increased in the Specific Area Plan to 1 hectare (current size is 5000m2) given the uniqueness and history of the area as previously mentioned. 2- that multiple dwellings on 5 acres is inappropriate and unnecessary given the uniqueness of this particular area, this also includes distances between dwellings and building heights. 3 - that a prohibition on the multiple dwellings provision be also included overriding the State Planning Provisions. 4 - Special Protection of all the hawthorn hedgerows in the entire Meander Valley municipality. 5 - Special Protection of all the unsealed reserve roads in and around my area.

In closing, I believe I have strongly argued why I live where I do and that "if people wish to have neighbours in close proximity, then move to suburbia".

Yours Sincerely,

Mr John Donaldson.

Contact number: 0417 014 095.

Please note that this email was sent by Ms Karen Murray with complete authorisation from Mr John Donaldson.


John B. Hawkins

J.B. and R.A. Hawkins

Email: [email protected]

21st December 2018

Martin Gill, General Manager:

Meander Valley Council

26 Lyall Street

Westbury 7303

By Email: [email protected] and [email protected]

Representation on Draft Meander Valley Local Provisions Schedule

Mayo Arboretum Land of Bentley - Agreed Land Zoning Sought

Dear Mr Gill,

I write regarding a matter which remains inappropriately zoned regarding the area of

Bentley which, although is within the old Chudleigh township, still unacceptably

remains in the Rural Resource Zone of the MV IPS and what is worse, is in the

Agriculture Zone of the Tasmanian Planning Scheme, draft Local Provisions Schedule

of Meander Valley.

We seek that the several small titles of Bentley, all within the gazetted town of

Chudleigh, which support the Mayo Arboretum be zoned into Open Space Zone of the

Local Provisions Schedule of the Tasmanian Planning Scheme. A separate enclosed

document of the titles of Bentley, which show the relevant titles to be so zoned forms a

part of our representation.

PA 2




2

We now consider this matter as important for Council to resolve. This representation

explains both the nature of the issue and the disadvantage that has been caused to us

through no fault of our own.

It should be noted that this representation only deals with the agreed zone change to

land supporting the Mayo Arboretum, in the town of Chudleigh. Since about 2007 we

have attempted to remedy many land use planning, scenic land management and

heritage deficiencies, many of which remain unresolved. However, due to personal

circumstances, that is critical health issues, we simply cannot afford to be spending

more time on those issues dealing with a recalcitrant, colonial administration in the

circumstances.

We understand Council received an email from Mr Ricketts on our behalf on the

4/12/2017 at 3:48 PM, attempting again to resolve this important matter prior to the

Draft Local Provisions of the Tasmanian Planning Scheme going to Council in

December 2017 and that MVC’s senior planner responded about a week later on

11/12/2017 at 12:08 PM. Mr Ricketts provided a copy of the emails (see below at the

end of this letter) and has discussed the matter at some length.

Please bear in mind our first representation on this matter was dated the 2nd

December 2013. Our representation was detailed, comprehensive and unambiguous.

We even provided a map based zoning proposal within that 67-page representation.

Council's response was not forthcoming until October 2014.

In January 2015, the Liberal State Government changed some of the law regarding

Interim Planning Schemes after the Directions Hearing and diminished our rights as

well as destroying the agreed process. We had reasonably and strenuously objected to

the Liberals pre-emptive wrecking proposal in 2014.

Now we are almost at the end of the 2018 year and the matter, which was agreed to be

resolved, is perhaps still languishing within the quagmire that is the Liberal

Government inspired shambles of the only partially resolved Interim Planning

Schemes in Tasmania.

It is conceded that a solution, albeit a complex and from our perspective and expensive

one, being that of a specific area plan (SAP) for Bentley was proposed by Council in

2018. Indeed, we at Bentley started doing this work, which proved to be complex and

substantial. During the latter part of 2018 we decided that other priorities needed to

take precedence.

Our previous proposal to take the land out of the Rural Resource Zone of the MVIPS

2013 and place it in the Low Density Residential Zone was contained in our

representation of the 2nd December 2013, see pages 15 to 18 including the zone

proposal map.

More explicitly, in the round of representations to Meander Valley’s 2013 Interim

Planning Scheme, we gained Council's agreement (as stated in Council’s Section 30J

PA 2

3

report to change the zone the titles, which we own, within the Chudleigh gazetted

town boundary.

Council had an alternative but also satisfactory and similar proposal in response,

which was expressed in its IPS Section 30J report, dated October 2014. See pages 31

through 35, especially Figure 15.6. (Use the page numbers in the 30J report itself).

After that IPS S30J report to the TPC, a meeting (rather than a hearing) was held

following the law being changed by the Liberals. Although we objected to those

scurrilous changes to the law it did no good. As a result of the changes, we believe the

processes, following the agreement of all parties was not tight and thus was not

satisfactory, did not meet the schedule one objectives of the RMPS, because decisions

and agreed positions and proposals simply were not implemented.

Early on in the meeting process, Council gained the Tasmanian Planning Commission

(Mr Alomes etc.) agreement. After consideration, we had decided to support the

Council's S 30J proposals, even though they were somewhat different to ours. This

was discussed in a TPS hearing/meeting and the un-actioned but agreed proposal by

Council is surely documented, both by Council and the Tasmanian Planning

Commission.

When one looks at the current IPS Zone Mapbook (available from:

http://www.meander.tas.gov.au/page.aspx?u=410) one can see that none of the

changes, which have been agreed by Council and which were supported by the TPC,

have been implemented, regarding the 14 titles of Bentley within the Chudleigh town

boundary, north of the Cemetery, which itself was dealt with and rezoned. We

naturally thought the changes would have been incorporated because we had a

consensus agreement before the TPC.

Mr Ricketts identified this problem late in November 2017, when he was checking the

Draft Meander Valley Local Provisions Schedule for the various Chudleigh matters

and wrote to Council’s Ms Oliver on the 4th December. Both he and I had been out of

the State for most of the informal preliminary consultation process around the

development of a draft Local Provisions Schedule for Meander Valley under the TPS.

Currently many of the 14 or so small titles of Bentley's, which are within the one PID

of Bentley are involved in this ‘mis-zoning’ and are zoned Rural Resource, not Low

Density Residential Zone in the MV IPS 2013.

Clearly there is a problem for us, should we intend to develop any of the land,

including the chapel, a historic building which remains outside of the Low Density

Residential Zone and inexplicably not included in Council’s local Heritage Place list.

That unrelenting avoidance is a travesty. On that subject, we noted that the TPC’s Mr

Alomes sought to have the matter of the local Heritage list rectified in the IPS

meeting process, but clearly his power on this occasion had been stripped away by the

Liberals.

PA 2

http://www.meander.tas.gov.au/page.aspx?u=410

4

During the IPS process we had thought we were increasing, in some, way low density

residential stock by way of offsetting the community opposition to Chudleigh North!

Currently the Draft Meander Valley Local Provisions Schedule of the Tasmanian

Planning Scheme proposes to zone almost the whole of our land as Agricultural Zone,

that is apart from the cemetery and the few Rural Living Zoned blocks on the top of

the hill and Kalingal which is in the Village Zone. This is unacceptable.

PLEASE NOTE: Currently, in both cases, (i.e. in both schemes) development

aspirations on Bentley near Burnett Street are stymied.

We, of course, cannot comment whether the ongoing nature of the mis-zoning problem

is a deliberate one or accidental. But we are positive there would be difficulties in

fixing it unless we get Council’s and Ms Oliver's as well as the Tasmanian Planning

Commission’s cooperation and agreement. Hence this representation seeking an

alternate zoning for the Chudleigh town blocks which support the Mayo Arboretum.

The fact is, at the moment, we could not easily protect the Mayo Arboretum were it to

remain in the open slather Agriculture Zone and nor could we separate any of the

small, town titles which are outside of the Arboretum from the main Bentley PID and

development the land on Burnett Street, north of the Cemetery, which remains within

the Rural Resource Zone and which now, inexplicably, is currently intended by

Council to remain within the Agriculture Zone.

Council’s decision to include this land that is within the town boundary, as

Agriculture Zone, simply flies in the face of its October 2014 (S30J) decision under the

MVIPS 2013 process. It is also against the verbal agreement and position we reached

with Council via a meeting at the Bentley Chapel in Burnett Street, Chudleigh on the

27th April 2018.

We acknowledge Council’s Ms Oliver raised in her email to Mr Ricketts earlier in 2018

the issue of the arboretum of relatively young trees planted within these 14 titles. The

Mayo Arboretum (as it is now called) will on Bentley actually dominates those 14

titles within the Chudleigh Gazetted town boundary. The arboretum itself was

planted by Robyn Hawkins (nee Mayo) and is important to both Robyn and myself.

This Arboretum is an Arboretum of Tasmanian eucalyptus trees.

We now consider that despite the RMPS system and the various provisions in the

Tasmanian Planning Scheme, which have mostly been discarded by Council that this

young arboretum cannot easily be conserved with a recalcitrant Council like Meander

Valley, which has so far refused to do anything of any use regarding the environment

or heritage or indeed scenic protection or even tree protection. The Mayo Arboretum

performs a function of landscape modification as well as its other function as a

collection of Australian native tree species. It was intended to be permanent.

Bentley has established the Mayo Arboretum and we obviously want it to survive: we

would prefer to have some way to protect it, which is actually, as we see it, no

different to our long held position over heritage and scenic landscape.

PA 2

5

There could be a number of ways within the new planning scheme. I am advised

Kingborough Council has done Part 5 Agreements for conservation purposes so that

solution is obviously possible but not very secure. Because it is not a natural planting

of species native to the property, we are also advised it is not appropriate to use the

covenant provisions of the Nature Conservation Act to recognise the public interest

values and protect the Mayo Arboretum. Thus we, in conjunction with Council, came

to the conclusion that a zone change for the titles supporting the Mayo Arboretum

would be best achieved in the circumstances by zoning this area to Open Space.

In terms of our now deferred aspirations to build on our land somewhere to the north

of the cemetery on Burnett Street, we would seek the block of land owned by Bentley,

within the Chudleigh town boundary, be zoned Low Density Residential, without

further delay. This is identified as such in the enclosed table of titles. We would expect

that such a zoning be incorporated into the Local Provisions Schedule of the

Tasmanian Planning Scheme.

We consider it may likely take too much time to allow this matter to languish in the

upcoming public comment on the Meander Valley's draft Local Provisions Schedule

within the Tasmanian Planning Scheme. To be clear: The problem of the zoning for

this part of Bentley should be a priority for Council and the TPC to rectify at the

earliest opportunity in this draft LPS.

It is very concerning that the first instance where the boundaries of the entirely new

Agricultural Zone (for Meander Valley) are spatially expressed becomes buried within

a new Draft Local Provisions Schedule. This is a large change of Zone which should

have been subjected to a separate consideration and public consultation. There are

obviously many inadequacies embalmed in the Agricultural Zone. Please note we

made representation over some of these in the draft State Planning Provisions

process.

Fancy being in hearings and meetings and making representations since December

2013 and a matter, which has basically been agreed, is still not resolved in January

2018. A disgraceful Liberal shambles. Nonetheless it is acknowledged that during

2018 Council’s agreement to the Mayo Arboretum being included in an open space

zone is welcome.

We understand the current Draft LPS process will have proper hearings (not

meetings) so this sort of ridiculous situation will not likely happen again. Both Robyn

and I are getting older and certainly do not have any more time to spare. This land

use planning matter has to be fixed sooner rather than later. In land use planning in

Tasmania it is immensely obvious that not only is there no intergenerational equity

but there indeed is no equity for the current generation, in our view.

As you can see from this letter, we completely disagree with Council about the status

of the matter and indeed the urgency. We do not support your approach and the lack

of a timely resolution of the matter.

PA 2

6

Conclusion

I trust this representation has clarified and proposed solutions for what we see as an

unsatisfactory land use planning zone matter for us here at Bentley.

We await Council’s consideration of the issues and proposals we have raised and look

forward to an early response.

Yours sincerely,

John B. Hawkins

Enclosure: Table of Bentley land titles and zones.

END

PA 2

Bentley Land Titles 21st December 2018 –Version for Use with LPS Submission Only

Compiled by A Ricketts for J.B. and R.A. Hawkins, Email: [email protected].

The following represents a list of the 29 titles under the PID 3033481 for the property Bentley Estate in December 2013. Also covers the John Hawkins

Properties which are not amalgamated for rates purposes with Bentley Estate; Titles in the name of J.B. Hawkins. PID: 2205202 Kalingal and associated titles

including railway line land. Also Titles in the name of Robyn .A. Hawkins. That is PID: 7821397 in Robyn Hawkins name.

The information compiled comes from copies of titles and title diagrams or plans which were provided by JBH’s new solicitor in 2018.

The information did not include PID: 7821397 and PID: 2205202 titles, so those tables have not been completed at this stage.

NB Guide to the 3 tables’ key.

TITLE Volume/Folio The title reference on the titles which were provided by JBH’s solicitor

OWNER There are three owners and the three tables correspond to those ownerships.

SIZE in Ha or Acres The area on the title plan attached to the title which was provided by JBH’s solicitor when the plan is sufficiently complete.

CURRENT or FUTURE USE Where known to the writer. Yet to be discussed with JBH and RAH so is a preliminary opinion only at this stage.

CURRENT MVCIPS 2013 ZONE The Current Zone in the Meander Valley Councils 2013 Interim Planning Scheme.

TPS Proposed Zone The anticipated Zone which is being proposed under Meander Valley Council’s Local Provisions Schedule. NB This is not the

zone which may appear in the Draft Local Provisions Schedule but the zone which may be most desired by JBH and RAH.

COMMENT Various information about the title to assist in its identification.

PA 2

PID 3033481 Titles in the name of JB and RA Hawkins:

TITLE Volume/Folio

OWNER SIZE in Ha or Acres

CURRENT or FUTURE USE

CURRENT MVCIPS 2013 ZONE

TPS Proposed Zone COMMENT

104210/1 JB and RA Hawkins

10 acres and 16 perches 4.087 Ha

Unknown but would appear to be farmland.

Rural Living Zone Rural Living Granted to James Buck Title ref A 11897 Registered Plan D 104210 Transferred to JBH and RAH on 5-5-2003 C439486 Bounded by Denison, Burgess, Gunn and Burnett Sts




Rural Living Zone Rural Living Zone Granted to James Buck Title ref A 11897 Registered Plan D 104210 Transferred to JBH and RAH on 5-5-2003 C439486 Bounded by Manly, Burgess, Fraser and Burnett Sts




Rural Living Zone Rural Living Zone Granted to James Buck Title ref A 11897 Registered Plan D 104210 Transferred to JBH and RAH on 5-5-2003 C439486 Bounded by Denison, Burgess, Fraser and Burnett Sts


6.804 Ha


Rural Living Zone Rural Living Zone Granted to James Buck Title ref A 11897 Registered Plan D 104210

PA 2

TITLE Volume/Folio





Transferred to JBH and RAH on 5-5-2003 C439486 Bounded by Manly, Burgess, Jean and Burnett Sts


4.239 Ha


Rural Living Zone Rural Living Zone

Granted to James Buck Title ref A 11897 Registered Plan D 104210 Transferred to JBH and RAH on 5-5-2003 C439486 Bounded by Manly, Foote and Burnett Sts


2.019 Ha

Farmland Internal roading

Rural Resource Zone Agriculture Zone Land described in conveyance no 8/1660 Excepting Lot 1 on P111363 Derivation Part of 860 acres granted to P Oakden Derived from A13499 Prior CT 109662/1 Transferred to JBH and RAH on 5-5-2003 C439486 Former Railway line easement


1.876 Ha

Farmland Internal roading

Rural Resource Zone Agriculture Zone Land described in conveyance no 8/1660 Excepting Lot 1 on P111363 Derivation Part of 860 acres granted to P Oakden Derived from A13499 Prior CT 109662/1

PA 2

TITLE Volume/Folio





Transferred to JBH and RAH on 5-5-2003 C439486 Former Railway line easement


4.087 Ha


Rural Living Zone Rural Living Zone

Whole of Lot 40964 Granted to PG and CV Cramp. Prior CT 4687/3 Lot 1 on plan 119176 Transferred to JBH and RAH on 5-5-2003 C439486 Bounded by Burgess. Dry, Burnett and Gunn Sts. Located to the south of the cemetery.


1 acre and 13 perches. 5387 sq. metres

Mayo Arboretum Rural Resource Zone Open Space Zone Granted to James Ritchie Derivation Whole of Lot 3 , 1A-1R-13ps Derived from Y17954 Transferred to JBH and RAH on 21-10-2003 C401310 Oakden and opposite end Burgess Sts


5666 sq. metres

Mayo Arboretum Rural Resource Zone Open Space Zone Derived from Y19836 Granted to George Ritchie Transferred to JBH and RAH on 21-10-2003 C401310 On Oakden Street Plan P138417


5666 sq. metres

Mayo Arboretum Rural Resource Zone Open Space Zone Derived from Y19836 Granted to George Ritchie

PA 2

TITLE Volume/Folio





Transferred to JBH and RAH on 21-10-2003 C401310 On Oakden Street Plan P138417


8397 sq. metres

Part Mayo Arboretum and Part Cemetery

Rural Resource Zone Part Open Space Zone and Part Community Purpose Zone

Derived from Y19836 Granted to George Ritchie. Transferred to JBH and RAH on 21-10-2003 C401310 On Oakden Street Plan P138417


1 acre Mayo Arboretum Rural Resource Zone Open Space Zone Corner of Burgess and Archer Derivation: Part of Lot 1 Granted to Richard Sheen. Derived from Y19972 Transferred to JBH and RAH on 21-10-2003 P.140238


2.023 Ha

Part Mayo Arboretum and Part Cemetery The former Presbyterian Church Reserve.

Part Rural Resource Zone and Part Community Purpose Zone.

Part Open Space Zone and Community Purpose Zone.

Town of Chudleigh. Corner of Burnett and Dry Sts. Lot 1 on Plan 142977 (Section 27A of the Land Titles Act) Derivation: Whole of Lot 1 on Plan 142977 Gtd to the Crown. Transfer to JBH and RAH Registered 26th April 2010. M265569

PA 2

TITLE Volume/Folio





Seems to include a part of Burnett St, in any case accessed off Burnett St at the end of the street.


177.7 Ha

Farmland and Includes the historic homestead of Bentley and a range of outbuildings.

Rural Resource Zone Agriculture Zone Parish of Woodbridge, Land District of Westmorland, and Town of Chudleigh. Lot 1 on Sealed Plan 150260 Derivation: Part of 860 acres granted to P Oakden and Part of 1500 acres located to P Foote and whole of Lot 1000 (4070 sq. m) The Crown, whole of lot 1001 (4047 sq. m) (Parts of Burgess St) The Crown Prior CT 127021/1, 150260/1000 and 150260/1001. Transferred to JBH and RAH C439486 and C750702 Mole Creek Road Chudleigh


2 acres Now shown as 8094 sq. m

Currently a Chapel Building, a former brick cottage. Dwelling opportunity intended for this title.

Rural Resource Low Density Residential Zone

Lot 10 on plan 16802. Derivation: Whole of 2 acres (Sec. F) Gtd to j. Ashdown and whole of Lot 6 (Sec F) Gtd to E Booth. Prior CT 3918/66 Transferred to JBH and RAH C 401214 on 21 Oct 2003. 41 Burnett St Chudleigh. Crn of Burnett and Oakden St.


4047 sq. m

Mayo Arboretum Rural Resource Zone Open Space Zone Lot 11 on plan 16802.

PA 2

TITLE Volume/Folio





Derivation: Whole of 2 acres (Sec. F) Gtd to j. Ashdown and whole of Lot 6 (Sec F) Gtd to E Booth. Prior CT 3918/66 Transferred to JBH and RAH C 401214 on 21 Oct 2003. Located Crn Burnett and Archer Sts.


8549 sq. m

Mayo Arboretum Rural Resource Zone Open Space Zone Lot 6 on plan 16802. Derivation: Whole of Lot 5 (Sec, W.w) and Lots 4, 7 and 9 (Sec. F) Gtd to D. Pickett, B. Coan and W. Bransgrove and H. Ashdown Prior CT 3918/65 Transferred to JBH and RAH C 401214 on 21 Oct 2003. Located on north side of Dry St adjoining Bentley. (where Burgess St may have run)


4047 sq. m

Mayo Arboretum Rural Resource Zone Open Space Zone Lot 7 on plan 16802. Derivation: Whole of Lot 5 (Sec, W. w) and Lots 4, 7 and 9 (Sec. F) Gtd to D. Pickett, B. Coan and W. Bransgrove and H. Ashdown Prior CT 3918/65 Transferred to JBH and RAH C 401214 on 21 Oct 2003.

PA 2

TITLE Volume/Folio






4047 sq. m

Mayo Arboretum Rural Resource Zone Open Space Zone Lot 8 on plan 16802. Derivation: Whole of Lot 5 (Sec, W. w) and Lots 4, 7 and 9 (Sec. F) Gtd to D. Pickett, B. Coan and W. Bransgrove and H. Ashdown Prior CT 3918/65 Transferred to JBH and RAH C 401214 on 21 Oct 2003. Frontage onto Oakden St


4047 sq. m

Mayo Arboretum Rural Resource Zone Open Space Zone Lot 9 on plan 16802. Derivation: Whole of Lot 5 (Sec, W. w) and Lots 4, 7 and 9 (Sec. F) Gtd to D. Pickett, B. Coan and W. Bransgrove and H. Ashdown Prior CT 3918/65 Transferred to JBH and RAH C 401214 on 21 Oct 2003. Frontage onto Archer St


4047 sq. m

Mayo Arboretum Rural Resource Zone Open Space Zone Town of Chudleigh. Lot 3 on diagram 20327. Derivation: Whole of Lot 3 Section F. Gtd to Benjamin Butterworth. Prior CT4040/18 Transferred to JBH and RAH on 21-10-2003 C 401214

PA 2

TITLE Volume/Folio






4 acres and 36 perches

Mayo Arboretum Rural Resource Zone Open Space Zone Granted to Warden of Deloraine. Derived from Vol 15 folio 70 Former title Vol 2256 fol 42 Transferred to JBH and RAH on 21-10-2003 C401310 Corner of Burnett and Oakden Sts Chudleigh



1 acre Mayo Arboretum Rural Resource Zone Open Space Zone Lot 8 on plan 228281 Gtd to H Ashdown Derived from CT Vol 790 fol 51 Transfer A 49644 Ex Philpott Transferred to JBH and RAH on 21-10-2003 C 401214 Frontage onto Archer St


16.52 Ha

Farmland Rural Resource Agriculture Zone Lot 1 on diagram 44248 Derivation: Part of 860 acres granted to P Oakden Prior CT 3822/12 Transferred to JBH and RAH on 20th June 2003


109.4 Ha

Farmland Rural Resource Agriculture Zone Lot 2 on diagram 44249 Derivation: Part of 860 acres granted to P Oakden Prior CT 3708/65

PA 2

TITLE Volume/Folio





Transferred to JBH and RAH on 20th June 2003


38.83 Ha

Farmland Rural Resource Agriculture Zone Lot 1 on Diagram 47523 Being land described in conveyance No 66/5586 Derivation: Part of 860 acres granted to P Oakden and Part of 1500 acres located to P Foote Prior CT 4742/71


19.91 Ha

Farmland Rural Resource Agriculture Zone Lot 2 on Diagram 47523 Being land described in conveyance No 66/5586 Derivation: Part of 860 acres granted to P Oakden and Part of 1500 acres located to P Foote Prior CT 4742/72 Transferred to JBH and RAH on 25th September 2003

PA 2

John Hawkins Properties which are not amalgamated for rates purposes with Bentley Estate; Titles in the name of J.B. Hawkins.

In John Hawkins’ name:

PID: 2205202 Kalingal and associated titles including railway line land.

TITLE OWNER SIZE in Ha or Acres

CURRENT or FUTURE USE CURRENT MVCIPS 2013 ZONE


228692/1 J.B. Hawkins. Kalingal curtilage Village Zone Village Zone Title yet to be provided.





Titles in the name of Robyn .A. Hawkins.

PID: 7821397 In Robyn Hawkins name:

TITLE OWNER SIZE CURRENT or FUTURE USE CURRENT MVCIPS 2013

ZONE

TPS SAP Proposed Zone

COMMENT

Folio: 34768/1 Robyn .A. Hawkins.

Rural Resource Needs discussion Likely Agriculture Zone

A residential building on main street just outside of village zone. Title yet to be provided.

PID: 7821397; Volume/ (A

END

PA 2

From: [email protected]: 18 Dec 2018 10:36:08 +1100To: Planning @ Meander Valley CouncilCc: 'Ian Abernethy'Subject: FW: Representation on the Draft Meander Valley Local Provisions Schedule - Entally/Rutherglen SiteAttachments: Entally Lodge Specific Area Plan.pdf, Entally Lodge Specific Area Plan - Outline Concept Paper.pdf, Entally Lodge Specific Area Plan Text.pdf

The Planning DepartmentMeander Valley Council Dear Sir/Madam, Representation on the Draft Meander Valley Local Provisions Schedule (Draft LPS). Please find attached our representation to the Draft Meander Valley Local Provisions Schedule. The representation is in relation to the Entally/Rutherglen site on the South-West side of Hadspen. We suggest an undeveloped area of this site would best be suited for a Specific Area Plan in order to allow for forward planning & development within the existing Enclave. We ask Meander Valley Council and the Tasmanian Planning Commission please consider this proposal through the Planning Scheme Assessment process. Regards, Brett WoolcottManaging DirectorRegistered Land Surveyor M 0417 596 770P 03 6332 3760E [email protected] www.woolcottsurveys.com.auA 10 Goodman Court, Invermay TAS (PO BOX 593, Mowbray Heights TAS 7248)



http://www.woolcottsurveys.com.au/

1

ENTALLY LODGE SPECIAL AREA PLAN

PAPER OUTLINING CONCEPT BEING PROPOSED

For

Entally Lodge Pty Ltd

Dec 2018

PA 2

2

Contents Proposal .................................................................................................................................................. 3

Livable Housing ....................................................................................................................................... 3

Land Covered by this Submission ........................................................................................................... 4

Ownership and Title ................................................................................................................................ 5

Point of Difference Proposed .................................................................................................................. 6

Livable Housing ................................................................................................................................... 6

Links to Current Entally/Rutherglen Development ............................................................................. 7

Target Markets for Livable Housing .................................................................................................... 8

Freedom Key for the Disabled ............................................................................................................ 8

Hadspen Special Area Plan .................................................................................................................... 10

Relationship to Hadspen Special Area Plan .......................................................................................... 10

Zoning/Overlays .................................................................................................................................... 10

Definitions ............................................................................................................................................. 10

Table of Uses ......................................................................................................................................... 11

Use Standards ....................................................................................................................................... 11

Development Standards ....................................................................................................................... 11

State Policies ......................................................................................................................................... 11

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 11

PA 2

3

Proposal This submission is made following the advertised request for representations in regard to the proposed Meander Valley Planning Scheme 2018.

It is proposed to establish a Specific Area Plan based around part of the Entally Lodge complex. The subject land fits within an existing enclave bounded by roads and existing development and builds on the infrastructure currently existing within the Entally Lodge/Rutherglen complex.

The project seeks to provide an opportunity for infill development by a modern contemporary extension to the existing development, including principles such as Livable Housing.

Livable Housing Liveable Housing Australia are committed to the promotion of housing that is designed to cater for every circumstance of life – a home for life…..“Lifehome”.

There is a growing exponential demand for Livable Housing with the adoption of the Livable Housing Australia Design Guidelines by the National Disability Insurance scheme (NDI), taking the principles of Livable Housing to the market place.

The concept of adaptable and liveable housing has been around for some time. The actual application of these very simple and common sense principles have however not found favour in main stream building with focus remaining firmly set on delivering the “cheapest” option available.

This industry mindset has unfortunately resulted in housing stock that is in many ways neither functional nor sustainable. This is especially so in light of the ageing population in Australia and more locally in Tasmania.

Some issues that have been identified by Livable Housing Australia and unquestionably must be addressed into the future include:-

• The significant ageing baby boomer demographic represents a growing market for age-friendly, livable designed housing;

• The number of Australians with disability will inevitably rise as the population grows and ages:

• One in 5 (close to 4 million) Australians currently have a disability of some type – about 320,000 are children:

• Research indicates there is a 60% chance that a house will be occupied by a person with a disability at some point over its live. This person is likely to be someone you know – a parent, a child, sibling or friend:

• The family home accounts for 62% of all falls and slip based injuries and costs the Australian population 1.8 billion in public health costs:

• The cost to the homeowner of including key livable housing design features (n this case the silver level) is 22 times more efficient than retrofitting when an unplanned need arises

Of particular interest to housing in Australia is the introduction of the Award Winning Freedom Key concept. This innovative and fresh model incorporates all the aspects of adaptable and liveable housing with the added bonus of providing that much needed and in many ways forgotten concept of friendship and neighbourly communication. The Freedom Key model requires a minimum of four

PA 2

4

dwellings positioned in such a way as to allow a common communal area to be constructed to the rear of each single dwelling. Each of the four units is provided with a carer’s bedroom as well as exclusive access through to the “common” area. This common area is carefully designed and positioned to ensure that the houses aren’t thought of as nursing care or group homes. They are designed in every respect to blend in with the street scape so as to look like any other home as you drive by.

The vision for the Entally village is to build on the existing retirement theme and take this theme to a new and exciting level. By combining all the very best design principles of AS4299 (Adaptable Housing), Livable Housing Guidelines and Freedom Key housing, future development of the site is destined to be unique in concept and inherently sustainable as a means of meeting the overwhelming needs of the ageing and needs based community in which we live.

This development will provide a unique opportunity to purchase a liveable home within a village environment - that will uniquely meet the needs of residence both now and throughout their lifetime - without in any way affecting the traditional sub-division market.

Land Covered by this Submission The land which will be the subject site of this proposal is identified in cadastre and aerial photo form below (outlined in blue).

Figure 1 – subject site (OUTLINED IN BLUE)

PA 2

5

Figure 2 – Aerial of subject site

Ownership and Title The land is owned by TB2 ENTALLY PTY LTD and FABLUM PTY LTD

The subject land is covered by 3 titles.

Property Address 'RUTHERGLEN CONVENTION CENTRE' - 28 RUTHERGLEN RD HADSPEN TAS 7290

Property ID 7197299 View Details

Title Reference 111014/2 View Details

Owners Name TB2 ENTALLY PTY LTD FABLUM PTY LTD

Owners Address PO BOX 1604 LAUNCESTON TAS 7250

Property Address RUTHERGLEN RD HADSPEN TAS 7290





PA 2

6

Property Address 'RUTHERGLEN INDOOR SPORTS CEN' - 29 RUTHERGLEN RD HADSPEN TAS 7290





Point of Difference Proposed Livable Housing The proposal seeks to create a point of difference between the subject site and the Hadspen township. The target market will focus on “Livable housing” and those living with a disability.

Livable housing is also known as Whole of Life housing and is a growing market in Metropolitan Cities and Regional Communities. There is a National Association, the Livable Housing Association chartered to promote livable housing design.

Livable Housing Australia (LHA) is a partnership between community and consumer groups, government and industry. LHA champions the mainstream adoption of livable housing design principles in all new homes built in Australia. LHA arose from the Kirribilli Dialogue on Universal Housing Design, which established nationally agreed guidelines on designing and building livable homes.

What is Livable Housing Design? A livable home is designed and built to meet the changing needs of occupants across their lifetime.

Livable design recommends the inclusion of key easy living features that aim to make homes easier and safer to use for all occupants including: people with a disability, ageing Australians, people with temporary injuries, and families with young children.

A livable home is designed to:

• be easy to enter

• be easy to move around in

• be capable of easy and cost-effective adaptation, and

• anticipate and respond to the changing needs of home occupants.

Legally, livable housing can be on a Torrens title or a strata title. The characteristic is a higher density development with extensive landscaping and some community facilities. The existing development around Rutherglen provides many of the needed facilities and the landscape setting.

PA 2

7

Links to Current Entally/Rutherglen Development Whilst the applicant firmly believes the proposal will create a point of difference with the development proposed for Hadspen, it is worth reflecting on how the proposal sits with the current development around Entally and Rutherglen Village.

The proponent would see this as an infill of this area – linking the current retirement units of Rutherglen with the more tourism/commercial developments of Entally. The area of the proposed Special Area Plan is bounded by roads and other developments and thus can readily be considered infill.

The proposal will add a further population number to the locale, reducing car dependency when desirous of using the café/bar/eating places of Entally. That in itself will be good for the economic viability of the commercial developments in the area.

Whilst the applicant would view the proposal as linking/infill with the current retirement units, it is suggested that what is being proposed will bring a more modern, more dynamic product into the local market. The proposal will add to product in the area rather than distracting from the current retirement units. The new market segments are outlined below.

The current zoning of Local Business does not sit comfortably within the strategic planning direction for Hadspen. Left unchanged there is a reasonable possibility that some form of large commercial/retail development could be approved for Entally which would threaten any plans to establish a viable commercial centre in Hadspen.

PA 2

8

Target Markets for Livable Housing The LHA identifies the following markets for livable housing:

Families with young children benefit from Livable Homes that make it easier to manoeuvre prams and strollers and remove trip hazards for toddlers. Moving furniture into and around a Livable Home is easy with wider doors and corridors.

People who sustain a temporary injury benefit from Livable Homes due to the easy to operate door handles and the step free pathway to all key areas of the home.

Ageing baby boomers who are looking to move or renovate their existing homes will benefit from Livable Homes. As their physical abilities change with age, this growing segment of the Australian property market will appreciate the simple changes to design that make their lives easier and safer. Visiting children and grandchildren will also be safer in their Livable Home.

People with a disability and their families will benefit from Livable Homes that enable them to take advantage of better housing choices and gives them the opportunity to visit the homes of friends and relatives.

Freedom Key for the Disabled The second market, related to Livable Housing, is cluster housing for the disabled – Freedom Key.

Cluster housing relates to a number of independent living units on a single title with a central, interconnected communal area (one, two or three rooms) where rehabilitation and therapy programmes can be provided.

Examples below with the curtesy of “Nicholas and Alexander – Architects”. Examples relate to a development in Sale, Victoria and do not necessarily reflect the detail of the Entally Village development.

PA 2

9

There are two markets for such housing – those with a permanent physical disability and those recovering from accidents.

Carers live within the complex with clients/residents and then schedule programmes within the communal spaces. Programme rooms are set up for physical activity or skill training.

PA 2

10

Hadspen Special Area Plan The purpose of the Hadspen Specific Area Plan is: MEA-S2.1.1 to provide for the development of the area consistent with the local area objectives; MEA-S2.1.2 to provide for the co-ordinated subdivision of land; MEA-S2.1.3 to co-ordinate the provision of infrastructure and public open space. These are fairly general purpose statements and give little clue as to how Hadspen will look and feel into the future. The local area objectives relative to residential uses for Hadspen are: a) To provide for the standard range of uses in the zone. b) Commercial uses are not to weaken the function of the town centre by drawing local service activities away from the centre. c) The zone is to provide for standard densities and types of suburban residential development, integrated with the preferred network of public open space, vegetated amenity corridors and roads.

Relationship to Hadspen Special Area Plan The proposed Entally Lodge Special Area plan will seek to NOT provide for standard densities and types of suburban residential development. Instead it will adopt the principles of Livable Housing as contained in the LHA Design Guidelines for Livable Housing and the design requirements for cluster housing (Freedom Key) for the disabled as its principle development standards.

The only non-residential uses to be encouraged in the SAP area will be those related directly to the target markets of Livable Housing and cluster housing for the disabled.

Zoning/Overlays The subject land will be zoned General Residential use.

The current zonings are Local Business and Rural Resource uses.

The subject site will be covered by a Special Area Plan overlay as shown attached as Annexure 1.

Definitions Within the Special Area Plan definitions for Livable Housing and cluster housing for the disabled will be proposed.

Livable Housing – A housing design that meets the needs of residents during the whole of their life and can be adapted to meet the needs of those with impaired mobility and other special needs, and is certified by LHA Design Guideline Assessors registered with LHA.

The State Planning Provisions define the following uses which assist in understanding the concept being proposed:

communal residence means use of land for a building to accommodate persons who are unrelated to one another and who share some parts of the building such as a boarding house, residential college and residential care facility.

residential care facility means use of land for accommodation and personal or nursing care. It includes recreational, health or laundry facilities and services for residents of the facility.

PA 2

11

residential support service means a centre, where services are provided by government or other community organisations, in the provision of residential accommodation.

Table of Uses The table of uses contained within the Special Area plan is based on the General Residential zone as contained in the Tasmanian Planning Scheme State Planning Provisions.

The table has been modified to remove many uses and to bring to the fore the Livable Housing developments.

Use Standards In line with the Hadspen SAP no Use Standards will be planned for the Entally Lodge SAP.

Development Standards Development Standards will generally follow those within the General Residential zone. The most significant change will be the lot sizes so as to cater for the Freedom Key concept – needs a larger lot – but does achieve four dwellings on the one lot. No Permit required extends to lots in the range 225 to 450sqm

State Policies The proposal does not conflict with any approved State Policies.

Conclusion The concept of Livable Housing and the focus on the Freedom Key type developments sets this SAP apart from the proposed development of Hadspen. Better use can be made of the existing commercial and recreational developments around Entally Lodge/Rutherglen.

PA 2

MEA-S22.0 Entally Lodge Specific Area Plan

MEA-S22.1 Plan Purpose

The purpose of the Entally Lodge Specific Area Plan is:

MEA-S22.1.1 to provide for the development of the area consistent with the local area objectives; MEA-S22.1.2 to provide for the co-ordinated subdivision of land; MEA-S22.1.3 to provide a level of development which capitalises on the existing developments within Rutherglen, whilst at the same time not detracting from the intent of the Hadspen Specific Area Plan. MEA-S22.1.4 to provide for aged care, disability housing and whole of life housing.

MEA-S22.2 Application of this Plan

MEA-S22.2.1 The specific area plan applies to the area of land designated as MEA-S22.0 Entally Lodge Specific Area Plan on the overlay maps [and in Figure S22.1].

MEA-S22.2.2 In the area of land this plan applies to, the provisions of the specific area plan are in substitution for, and are in addition to the provisions of:

(a) General Residential Zone, as specified in the relevant provision.

MEA-S22.3 Local Area Objectives

MEA-S22.3.1 Local Area Objectives

Sub-clause

Area Description

Local Area Objectives

MEA-S22.3.1.1 General Residential Zone within the area shown on overlay map as MEA-S22.0 and in Figure S22.1

a) To provide for the standard range of uses b) Commercial uses are not to weaken the function of the Hadspen town centre by drawing local service activities away from the centre. c) The zone is to provide Livable Housing, Residential Support Services and/or Communal Residences, integrated with the preferred network of public open space, vegetated amenity corridors and roads.

PA 2

MEA-S22.4 Definition of Terms

Livable Housing – A housing design that meets the needs of residents during the whole of their life and can be adapted to meet the needs of those with impaired mobility and other special needs, and is certified by LHA Design Guideline Assessors registered with LHA.

MEA-S22.5 Use Table

MEA-S22.5.1 Use Table – General Residential Use. This clause is in substitution for General Residential Zone – clause 8.2 Use Table.

Use Class Qualification No Permit Required Natural and Cultural Values Management Passive Recreation Residential If for single or multiple dwellings, a Livable

dwelling, or Communal Residences meeting the Acceptable Solutions for Lot Size.

Utilities If for minor utilities. Permitted Visitor Accommodation Discretionary Residential If not listed as No Permit Required Business and Professional Services

If for a consulting room, medical centre, or for the provision of residential support services.

Community Meeting and Entertainment

If for a place of worship, art and craft centre, public hall, community centre or neighbourhood centre.

Educational and Occasional Care If not for a tertiary institution. Emergency Services Food Services If not for a take away food premises with a

drive through facility. General Retail and Hire If for a local shop. Sports and Recreation If for a fitness centre, gymnasium, public

swimming pool or sports ground. Utilities If not listed as No Permit Required. Prohibited All other uses

PA 2

MEA-S22.6 Use Standards

This sub-clause is not used in this Specific Area Plan.

MEA-S22.7 Development Standards for Buildings and Works

MEA-S22.7.1 General Residential Zone – Density This clause is in addition to General Residential Use Zone – clause 8.4.1 Residential for Multiple Dwellings, Livable Dwellings and Communal Residences.

Objective: To provide for residential densities that are consistent with the local area objectives for land within the Rutherglen Specific Area Plan.

Acceptable Solutions

Performance Criteria

A1 a) Dwellings are constructed with a minimum site area per dwelling of 225m2 and a maximum site area per dwelling of 450m2. or b) The development is for multiple dwellings on single or adjoining lots or single dwellings on lots of 450m2 or less. or c) The development is for multiple dwellings for Livable Housing use

P1 The density of residential development is to appropriately support the objectives for higher densities in the zone and the intended character of the area, having regard to: a) topographical constraints; b) infrastructure or servicing constraints; c) the density of the surrounding area; d) proximity to services and public transport; and e) whether the development provides for a significant social or community housing benefit.

MEA-S22.7.2 General Residential Zone – Site coverage and private open space for all dwellings. This clause is in addition to General Residential Use Zone – clause 13.4 Development Standards for Site coverage and private open space for all dwellings and in substitution for clause 8.4.3 Dwellings.

Objective: (a) To ensure that the siting and design of development is consistent with the local area objectives for land within the Specific Area Plan. (b) To protect the residential amenity of lots by ensuring that the height, setbacks, siting and design of buildings provides adequate privacy, separation, open space and sunlight for residents. (c) To provide for private open space that is appropriate to a higher density residential environment.



A1 Site Coverage must not exceed 70% P1.1 Site coverage must have regard to: (a) the existing site coverage and any constraints imposed by existing development or the

PA 2

features of the site; (b) the site coverage of adjacent properties; (c) the effect of the visual bulk of the building and whether it is consistent with the desired future character; and (d) the capacity of the site to absorb stormwater runoff. P1.2 Dwellings must have private open space that is of a size and dimensions that are appropriate for the size of the dwelling and is able to accommodate: a) outdoor recreational space consistent with the projected requirements of the occupants and take into account any communal open space or nearby public open space; and b) operational needs, such as clothes drying and storage.

MEA-S22.7.3 General Residential Use Zone – Building Height. This clause is in substitution for General Residential Use Zone – clause 13.4.1 Building Height.

Objective: (a) To ensure that the siting and design of development is consistent with the local area objectives for land within the Specific Area Plan. (b) To protect the residential amenity of lots by ensuring that the height, setbacks, siting and design of buildings provides adequate privacy, separation, open space and sunlight for residents.



A1 Building Height must not exceed 8.5 metres Building Height must not exceed 8.5 metres P1 The design and siting of buildings must: a) not cause unreasonable loss of amenity by: (i) reduction in sunlight to a habitable room (other than a bedroom) of a dwelling on an adjoining lot; (ii) overshadowing the private open space of a dwelling on an adjoining lot; (iii) overshadowing of an adjoining vacant lot; (iv) visual impacts caused by the apparent scale, bulk or proportions of the dwelling when viewed from an adjoining lot; or (v) overlooking of habitable room windows or private open space of an adjoining dwelling; and b) have regard to the intended or prevailing character of the surrounding area.

PA 2

MEA-S22.8 Development Standards for Subdivision

MEA-S22.8.1 Infrastructure Contribution. This clause is in addition to General Residential Zone - clause 8.6, Development Standards for Subdivision.

Objective: To provide for a Part 5 agreement, prior to the subdivision of land, to ensure that developer contributions are made towards the establishment costs of shared infrastructure.



A1 An agreement pursuant to Part 5 – section 71 of the Act is entered into and registered on the title, providing for the schedule of costs and developer contribution toward shared infrastructure.

P1 No Performance Criterion.

MEA-S22.8.2 Lot Design

This clause is in substitution for General Residential Zone, Lot Design.

Objective: To provide for lot sizes that are consistent with the Purpose and Local Area Objectives of the Specific Area Plan.



A1.1 Each lot must: a) have a minimum area between 225 to 450 sqm; or b) be required for public use by the Crown, an agency, or a corporation all the shares of which are held by Councils or a municipality; or c) be for the provision of utilities; or d) be for the consolidation of a lot with another lot with no additional titles created; or e) be to align existing titles with zone boundaries and no additional lots area created. A1.2 Each Lot must have new boundaries aligned from buildings that satisfy the relevant acceptable solutions for setbacks.

P1 Each lot must provide sufficient useable area and dimensions, consistent with the Specific Area Plan, to allow for: a) buildings to be erected in a hazard free location; b) on-site parking and manoeuvrability; c) adequate private open space; and d) reasonable vehicular access from the carriageway of the road to a building area on the lot.

PA 2

MEA-S22.8.3 Water and Sewer Services

This clause is in substitution for General Residential Zone, Services.

Objective: a) To provide for the connection of lots within the Local Business, and General Residential Zones to a reticulated sewer. b) To provide for the connection of lots within the Local Business, Urban Mixed Use and General Residential Zones to a reticulated water supply. c) To provide lots within the Low Density Residential and Rural Living Zones with reticulated water and sewer services where feasible.



A1 Each lot must be connected to a reticulated: a) water supply; and b) sewerage system.

P1 Each lot created must be: a) in a locality for which reticulated services are not available or capable of being connected; and b) capable of accommodating an on-site wastewater management system.

MEA-S22.8.4 Stormwater Services

This clause is in substitution for General Residential Zone, Services.

Objective: a) Subdivision is to provide for stormwater treatment through the principles of Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) and principally directing stormwater to the identified Key WSUD Stormwater Lines and Wetland Dispersal Area. b) The stormwater system is to be designed to accommodate peak storm events and avoid flooding of development areas. c) The design of the WSUD stormwater system is to appropriately integrate into public open space and the road network by enhancing the ‘natural environment’ visual amenity of the public areas and taking public safety into account. d) The WSUD stormwater system is to be designed to minimise the long term maintenance obligations for Public Open Space.



PA 2

A1 a) Each lot must be connected to a

reticulated stormwater system or;

b) Development is consistent with a Stormwater Management Plan prepared by a suitably qualified person and approved by the council.

P1 The stormwater system is to be designed to accommodate the peak stormwater loads from lots and roads through a combination of the following elements as appropriate: a) an open swale network that can appropriately accommodate stormwater volumes and velocity; b) vegetation planting to slow and filter stormwater; c) constructed baffles to slow stormwater and prevent erosion; d) detention basins to slow and gradually release stormwater resulting from higher impact storm events; and e) underground pipes.

MEA-S22.8.6 Public Open Space

This clause is in addition to General Residential Zone, Development Standards for Subdivision.

Objective: Subdivision is to provide for a network of public open space that is consistent with the Local Area Objectives and Desired Future Character Statements of the Specific Area Plan.



A1 No acceptable solution.

P1 The public open space network is to be designed to provide a high level of amenity and connectivity having regard to: a) the topography of the land; b) requirements for vegetated amenity corridors; c) integration of shared use for pedestrians and bicycles; d) integration of WSUD stormwater requirements; e) public safety; and f) provision of clear legibility at road crossings.

PA 2

Figure S2.1

ENTALLY LODGE SPECIFIC AREA PLAN

PA 2

From: Richard HilderSent: 10 Dec 2018 09:13:09 +1100To: Planning @ Meander Valley CouncilSubject: Submission under the Draft LPS for Council/Community Land in Alveston Dve, Deloraine.Attachments: Richard Hilder - Enquiry - Alveston Drive Land.pdfImportance: Normal

To The Planning Department, Meander Valley Council, I formally submit a Draft under the Local Provision Schedule for consideration and action to re-zone the Council owned Land certificate title (CT 117059/4) from a “Residential Zone” to a “Community Zoning”. Attached is an advise confirming the current zonings from yourselves. Council sign off and agreement was made to change both parcels of land as highlighted in the attached PDF to “Community Zoning” as part of the final Council vote giving signoff and agreements made by Council in acceptance of the Meander Valley Interim Planning Scheme 2013. Only one parcel of land (CT 26446/1) has been actioned. Please undertake to re-zone Council owned land (CT 117059/4) to “Community” Confirmation of the receipt of this Draft would be appreciated. Richard Hilder14 Rickman St, Deloraine Tas 7304Ph. 6362 4035. From: Jo OliverSent: Friday, November 23, 2018 12:37 PMTo: [email protected]: FW: PDF of Alveston Dve land information Hi Richard Further to your enquiry last night I attach the PDF showing both titles highlighted and the associated ownership information and zoning listed at the bottom of the image. This is the current zoning.The draft LPS as notified has this carrying through, however I have discussed with the General Manager about where Council is at with land and potential future use of the land. MVC will be making a submission to its planning scheme Local Provisions Schedule on a number of matters and we will include that the Council owned parcel (CT 117059/4) currently zoned General Residential, should be rezoned to Community Purpose Zone for this process.I note that this does not preclude any future consideration of proposals for the land, but given there are none in the pipeline at this point in time it makes sense for the zoning to reflect the existing extent of the public use of the land. Future proposals would be subject to a publicly notified process at that time.




I would still encourage you to make a submission to the Draft LPS regarding your thoughts on this matter, just to be sure you secure a right of address to the Tasmanian Planning Commission when they are considering Council’s Draft LPS for a final decision. I hope this addresses your enquiry. If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to call me on 6393 5325. Regards Jo

Jo Oliver | Senior Strategic PlannerMeander Valley Council working together

T: 03 6393 5300 | F: 03 6393 1474 | E: [email protected] | W: www.meander.tas.gov.au26 Lyall Street (PO Box 102), Westbury, TAS 7303

Please note that our Westbury Office will be closed from 12pm on Friday 21 December 2018 and will re-open at 8.30am on Wednesday 2 January 2019. We wish you a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

Notice of confidential informationThis e-mail is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the addressee, you are requested not to distribute or photocopy this message. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and destroy the original message.Views and opinions expressed in this transmission are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Meander Valley Council.

Jo Oliver | Senior Strategic PlannerMeander Valley Council working together

T: 03 6393 5300 | F: 03 6393 1474 | E: [email protected] | W: www.meander.tas.gov.au26 Lyall Street (PO Box 102), Westbury, TAS 7303

Please note that our Westbury Office will be closed from 12pm on Friday 21 December 2018 and will re-open at 8.30am on Wednesday 2 January 2019. We wish you a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.


http://www.meander.tas.gov.au/

http://www.meander.tas.gov.au/

From: Matthew ReidSent: 13 Dec 2018 16:43:47 +1100To: Planning @ Meander Valley CouncilSubject: FW: Representation to Local Provisions ScheduleAttachments: img-Z13125225-0001.pdf

To the General Manager, Meander Velley Council. Please see attached my representation to the Meander Valley Council Local Provisions Schedule. If you could please confirm the receiving of this representation that would be much appreciated. RegardsMatthew ReidB.Geom (Hons), M.SSSI, M.AIPMAssociate Surveyor MOB: 0467 449 272PHONE: +61 3 6331 4099FAX: +61 3 6334 30983/23 Brisbane Street, Launceston 7250www.pda.com.au

The information contained in this e-mail message and any attached files may be the subject of legal professional privilege. Any form of review, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution and/or publication of the information in this e-mail, other than by the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments.





General Manager

By email to: [email protected]

Annemaree Woodward

Aeolia

700 Larcombes Rd

Reedy Marsh

Tasmania 7304


15 December 2018

Representation to Meander Valley Council Draft Local Provisions Schedule

Dear Sir,

I write to make comment on the Meander Valley Council Draft Local Provisions Schedule,with regard to it impacts on Reedy Marsh.

Particular Purpose Zone

In 2013, I fully supported the Meander Valley Council rezoning my land to the new categoryof Environmental Living Zone [ELZ]. My land went from the Rural Zone of the 1995 Schemeto the Rural Resource Zone in the PAL amendment of 2007, to my detriment. I objected tothis but at that stage, Council completely ignored my valid concerns. The ELZ brought thezoning back to something acceptable to me. Now that the State Government wants todissolve the ELZ, a Particular Purpose Zone [PPZ] is proposed to properly reflect the landUse of the somewhat unique area at the northern end of Larcombes Rd.

I live in and own a property in the area proposed as the Particular Purpose Zone –Larcombes Rd.

Firstly, I think the name of the Particular Purpose Zone [PPZ] should reflect the purpose ofthe zone rather than the location. I would prefer the name to be Natural Living.

This is easily justifiable. The proposed PPZ at Larcombes Rd has a relatively high state ofboth biophysical and aesthetic naturalness.

The ‘Particular Purpose Zone - Larcombes Road’ area is largely surrounded by the ReedyMarsh Conservation Area (RMCA), a secure reserve on public land, conserved for itsnatural values under the Nature Conservation Act and currently zoned EnvironmentalManagement Zone (EMZ).

PA 2

2

Most of the private land is also protected under the Nature Conservation Act. The vastmajority of the landowners of the area have made a commitment to the protection of natureby virtue of a conservation covenant over all or part of their land.

As well, the area has a remote feeling despite not being remote. The furthest address is 17km from Deloraine. It is a peaceful, quiet place with a lovely, natural, in-forest ambience.

Others have suggested different names – Eco Living, Conservation Lifestyle, NatureConservation Living and even the obvious, Environmental Living. If there is objection to theuse of words that have connotations of environmental protection, then Natural Living seemsto me to be fairly uncontentious. The people in the zone are living in a natural area. It’sindisputable.

I consider the name Particular Purpose Zone - Larcombes Rd. is inappropriate as only apart of Larcombes Rd is included in the zone. If the zone had a descriptive name, it could befollowed by the name of the road with no confusion – Natural Living, Larcombes Rd. wouldseem to serve.

I wish to reiterate some of the reasons that I see that support the PPZ for the area.

Conservation covenants are binding agreements, usually in-perpetuity, conductedvoluntarily between a landholder and the state government, to protect and enhance thenatural, cultural and scientific values of private land and are registered on the land title.

The standard covenant under the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act provides a specifiedrange of obligations to the owner of the private reserve that are clearly articulated andenforceable. The covenants were negotiated individually, following a rigorous approach tonature conservation so that they are resilient and have reliable integrity. The plannedapproach to the management of the subject land can assist municipal planning in land useterms.

Covenanted properties all have management plans, titled ‘Operations Plan’ that the allowedand forbidden uses on the land concerned. They can and should inform the zoning of thisarea.

The ‘PPZ-Larcombes Road’ area has a long-standing expectation of residential use. Thiswas partially recognised in 1995.

The difference between the ‘PPZ-Larcombes Road’ and other rural living zonings in ReedyMarsh is both significant and justifiable. High Conservation Values within the ‘PPZ-Larcombes Road’ area are identified, recognised and agreed to be protected in-perpetuity,between the owner and both the State of Tasmania and the Commonwealth. MVCrecognised this almost 100% conservation development across the titles when it establishedthe ELZ here.

Some properties currently zoned as Environmental Living Zone could be considered ‘ruralresidential’. However, the in-perpetuity conservation covenants in the Environmental LivingZone, demonstrate that the Use of the land is not ‘rural’. There are virtually no rural activitiesin the Reedy Marsh Environmental Living Zone. There is also lower residential density.

Many ratepayers who own rural living properties do carry out rural activities on a ‘hobbyfarm’ basis - keeping livestock, perhaps growing horticultural crops and other rural pursuits.

‘Rural Living’ is not the same as ‘Environmental Living’. The management of a reserveunder an in-perpetuity, conservation covenant is not a rural activity.

Those titles within the proposed PPZ at Larcombes Rd differ considerably from all othertitles within the various low-density living areas.

PA 2

3

Setback standards

Front setbacks should reflect the current developments in the area. Anything less than 50metres would result in clearance to the front boundary that is undesirable for aesthetic andprivacy reasons. Residents have clearly demonstrated over a long period of time that theywish their homes to be discreet from public view.

I wish to condemn the 200 m setback for residential development in the Rural Living Zonefrom the Rural and Agricultural Zones. This is an outright donation of 200 metres (by thelength of the boundary) of rural living properties. Arguably, the value of property in the PPZis considerably greater than that in Rural and Agricultural Zones so it doesn’t even makeeconomic sense. If agricultural activities are considered to have such potential to impact onresidential use, a good, hard look at what is going on in agriculture needs to occur. Farmersare not required to put a 200-metre buffer around their own homes. How is this logical?Should farming families be protected from the on-farm activities by a 200-metre setback allaround their house?

It is not acceptable that the Rural or the Agricultural Zones have a mere five metre set backfrom the boundary yet Rural Living Zones have a 200 m setback. Rural Living residents arerequired to donated 40 times more land simply so the farmer can farm right up to theboundary. This only affects those landowners on the edge of the RLZ but there are many ofthese in Reedy Marsh.

If a 200 m setback is considered necessary, the landowners in the Rural or AgriculturalZone should be required to pay compensation to landowner in all adjoining rural livingzones.

Not many properties in the proposed PPZ would be affected by this standard but it iscompletely unacceptable all the same.

Rural Living Zone

There is a number of aspects of the Rural Living Zone in Reedy Marsh that mean it wouldbenefit from a Specific Area Plan.

In the Draft Meander Valley LPS quite a lot of Reedy Marsh is covered by the Rural LivingZone (RLZ) with a standard 10Ha minimum lot size for subdivision. Under the currentMeander Valley Interim Planning Scheme 2013, Reedy Marsh has an existing minimum lotsize for subdivision of 15Ha. Specifics of the 10Ha rule of the upcoming TasmanianPlanning Scheme make subdivision down from 10 Ha to 8 possible. Eight hectares is simplytoo small in Reedy Marsh. The minimum lot size in the Reedy Marsh Rural Living Zoneshould definitely not be less than 15Ha.

A front set back standard of 20 metres is inadequate in terms of privacy and amenity. Itwould cause clearance to the front boundary. A front setback of 50 metres would be morecompatible with the values and uses of the Rural Living Zone in Reedy Marsh.

The maximum building coverage area for the Rural Living Zone is the same regardless ofthe minimum lot size. This SPP standard is 400 m². That is 400 m² of buildings in RuralLiving Zone A, with a 1 ha minimum lot but the same standard in Rural Living Zone D, with a10 ha minimum lot. This does not make any sense. Many properties in Reedy Marsh areconsiderably larger than the 10 or 15 Ha minimum and will likely remain 20 Ha, 30 Ha or 50Ha in size.

PA 2

4

A greater square metre range of buildings would be more appropriate if sited within a singlecurtilage. Rural living properties require various sheds in addition to a house. This wouldquickly add up to more than 400 m² of buildings. It would be far more reasonable to allowmaximum of 800 m² building cover.

Forestry plantations are proposed to be a Discretionary Use. Plantation establishment doesnot have a social licence in Reedy Marsh. Plantations should be Prohibited.

Currently Visitor Accommodation is a Permitted development. In my view, it would be wisefor it to be Discretionary to allow for various conditions to be put in place consideringparticular conditions of a given site. This is especially important with regard to the bushfirerisk.

My comments above in the section on the PPZ – Larcombes Rd regarding the 200 msetback requirement from the Rural and Agricultural Zones apply to the Rural Living Zonealso.

Please see below for my comments on Use categories.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Meander Valley Council Local ProvisionsSchedule.

Yours sincerely,

Annemaree Woodward

PA 2

5

Proposed Use Table for Reedy Marsh Particular Purpose Zone

Uses

Permitted without a permit

Natural Cultural Values Management - In line with Covenant ManagementPlan.

Passive Recreation

Home Office

Shed: Additions or extensions to a shed – With appropriate setbacks.

Shed: New – Smaller – as above

Water Tank to 90,000 L – not plastic, multiples allowed depending on sitecoverage and setbacks

Grazing - In areas permitted within a Covenant or outside of the Covenantedarea. (in accordance with covenant conditions)

Fencing - (in accordance with covenant conditions)

Horticulture

Granny flat

Manufacturing – small scale only such as honey production, jewellery, jam-making, cake baking, sewing, knitting and other home industries etc

Retail associated with home-based business – on-line sales, or intermittentsales such as at an art or craft exhibition or similar.

Small scale primary production and associated processing – not intensiveanimal husbandry

Permitted with a Permit

Residential/Single dwelling - (in accordance with covenant conditions)

Home based business.

Shed: New – Larger - (in accordance with covenant conditions)

Discretionary

Domestic animal boarding/breeding/training

Minor utilities – any future utility development to be underground.

Art & craft centre – as part of home based business – small scale orintermittent use

Emergency services

PA 2

6

Food services 200m²

Tourist Operation

Retail associated with tourist operation

Visitor Accommodation

PA 2

Shane Westley

PO Box 606, Launceston 7250

[email protected]

21st December 2018

Mr. Martin Gill

General Manager


Po Box 102, Westbury 7303

[email protected]

RE: Meander Valley Draft Local Provisions Schedule

Dear Mr. Gill,

Thank you for the opportunity to make representation to the Draft Meander Valley Local Provisions

Schedule (Draft LPS).

I would also like to acknowledge the effort of detail by Meander Valley Council and staff to present

the requirements of the Tasmanian Planning Commission in the prescribed format which is not an

easy feat given the complexity of multiple planning instruments.

I have taken this opportunity to bring to your attention some of the provisions in the Draft LPS which

I believe should be reviewed to provide a better solution in the longer term. Some of these issues are

contrary to the previous planning intentions which were one of the reason why I have purchased

property within the Meander Valley.

Some of these proposed changes as a result of the Draft LPS have implications for my own property

and surrounding local area not to mention effects across the Meander Valley as a whole. I feel strongly

about these issues and believe, in some instances, that there is a better solution to what has been

proposed. Explanations of my concerns are provided, and solutions proposed with mapping where

necessary (refer attachment).

Please take the time to consider my representation seriously and feel free to contact me at any time

if you require clarification.

I would also prefer that my representation was kept confidential particularly since I have referenced

land parcel identifiers which effect my property and surrounds.

Regards,

Shane Westley

PA 2



Attachment

1. Zone naming convention

RE: Naming of the Draft LPS Zone (Particular Purpose Zone – Larcombes Road) to replace

current Zone

Particularly in reference to the Zone proposed for land on which my current property lies

within, as it does not provide the reader with a basic indication of the land use which I believe

would be helpful in future.

Currently my property is zoned as “Environmental Living”

The tenure of my property and several in the adjacent areas have been voluntarily and

intentionally registered under environmental “Conservation Covenants”. This allows for

retention of the natural values of the area while restraining uses that would otherwise reduce

the aesthetic and lifestyle values retained by this zoning intention.

Currently this zoning is “Environmental Living” and clearly articulates a description of the

intended land use of the property in this zone.

The draft LSP proposes that the current zone be changed and renamed as Particular Purpose

Zone – Larcombes road.

It is difficult to understand how this description is deemed appropriate given that the

description Particular Purpose Zone – Larcombes Road does not convey a use of the land.

I would like to propose that the naming of the Zone be reviewed, and a change considered to

a description that is more meaningful to the purpose of the land use in the zone for example

to:

Particular Purpose Zone – Natural Values Amenity Living (Larcombes Road).

I believe a zone description in alignment with what I have suggested gives clarity within the

planning scheme reference - PPZ, provides a description of use – Natural values amenity living

and provides geographical reference – Larcombes Road ie. The What, Why and Where.

PA 2

2. Zoning Proposed

Re: Application of the Draft LSP with respect to the Natural Assets Code

“The draft LPS includes a map overlay for vegetation protection through the Natural Assets Code, based on the Regional Ecosystem Model (Refer Section 4.1.1 and Appendix A). The overlay is the mechanism whereby important habitat is identified. However, the SPP’s restrict the application of the Code to specific zones and does not allow consideration of the priority vegetation area in the Agriculture Zone, which makes up the largest portion of the Meander Valley land area.” The MVC should resolve the issue where the proposed zoning in the Draft LPS is “Agriculture”

and there is clearly a majority of land parcel mapped under the overlay for vegetation

protection through the Natural Assets Code. This creates an inconsistency if the current

proposed zoning LPS remains in place.

Section 8A Guideline No.1 – Agriculture zone – Zone application Guideline AZ5 states that:

Titles may be split-zoned to align with areas potentially suitable for agriculture, and areas on the same title where agriculture is constrained. This may be appropriate for some larger titles.

Section 8A Guideline No.1 – Agriculture zone – Zone application Guideline AZ6 states that:

Land identified in the ‘Land Potentially Suitable for Agriculture Zone’ layer may be considered for alternate zoning if:

(a) local or regional strategic analysis has identified or justifies the need for an alternate consistent with the relevant regional land use strategy, or supported by more detailed (b) for the identification and protection of a strategically important naturally occurring resource which requires an alternate zoning; (c) for the identification and protection of significant natural values, such as priority vegetation areas as defined in the Natural Assets Code, which require an alternate zoning, such as the Landscape Conservation Zone or Environmental Management Zone; (d) for the identification, provision or protection of strategically important uses that require an alternate zone; or (e) it can be demonstrated that: (i) the land has limited or no potential for agricultural use and is not integral to the management of a larger farm holding that will be within the Agriculture Zone; (ii) there are significant constraints to agricultural use occurring on the land; or (iii) the Agriculture Zone is otherwise not appropriate for the land.

Surely these guidelines should be considered where there are properties that would be zoned

differently if the MVC Natural Assets Code was applicable and taken into account where the

majority of land title was constrained for agriculture development. In these cases, it would

appear to be more appropriate for these titles to be included in either “Rural” or “Landscape

Conservation” where the natural assets are recognised.

Please refer to attached mapping and explanation below as an example where this may apply:

PA 2

The Blue Shaded area is proposed as “Agriculture” zone under the Draft LPS (currently zoned “Rural

Resource”). The hatched area is the Natural values asset layer that includes priority vegetation and

wetlands flood mapping. Therefore, indicating that the restraint on agricultural use is significant in

these areas even though they are proposed to be zoned as “Agriculture”.

PA 2

3. Personal Impact from Draft LPS

RE: Current land sale negotiation

Currently my property is zoned as “Environmental Living” under the interim planning

scheme.

My intention and indeed the situation currently unfolding at present is that I am in

negotiations with a land owner adjacent to my property. The owner has offered to

negotiate the sale of part of their property to me.

The current tenure of this land is “Rural” however when the natural values of the majority of

this land is taken into account both surveyed and Natural Assets overlay then approximately

65 to 70% of the title would be more appropriately zoned as “Environmental Living” or

“Environmental Management”.

This would be identified as ‘Particular Purpose Zone – Larcombes Road’ or ‘Landscape

Conservation Zone’ under the current Draft LPS zoning format.

The land is currently under a Private Timber Reserve and also effected by wetlands and is

identified in the Flood zone mapping which would restrain agricultural use of the property to

the remaining approx. 30% of the land use. Therefore to be zoned agriculture under the

draft LSP is inconsistent with the intent of that zoning.

The current negotiation is for the purchase of land that contains high value natural assets

such as mapped endangered vegetation in some areas. It would be advantageous to include

this land into ‘Particular Purpose Zone – Larcombes Road’ or ‘Landscape Conservation Zone’

under the current Draft LPS zoning format prior to purchase.

The owner of the property has advised in emails dated 13th & 19th December 2018 that they

have agreed to negotiate the purchase of part of their title by me.

I have confirmation (email) from the owner that (1) this is a land sale negotiation (2) the

owner is in agreement to change the zoning to PPZ- Larcombes Road as described in the

Draft LPS and (3) remove the PTR from the land negotiated for sale.

If this sale is negotiated and occurs during the transition of the current interim MVC

planning scheme to the proposed draft LPS it would be advantageous to request clarity on

how the MVC are planning to accommodate a negotiated purchase of the property in this

case. Also, a request that the eventual zoning of the proposed purchase be approved as

“Particular Purpose Zone - Larcombes Road” or equivalent when the new planning scheme is

ratified.

PA 2

Andrew Charles Ricketts

Bradys Creek

780 Larcombes Road

REEDY MARSH 7304

TASMANIA

Phone Spicer 03 6368 1343


21st December 2018

The General Manager,

Meander Valley Council:

PO Box 102,

Westbury 7303;

By email to: [email protected]

Representation on Tasmanian Planning Scheme

Draft Meander Valley Local Provisions Schedule

This representation primarily is concerned with the ‘Particular Purpose Zone-Larcombes

Road’ for the area at the far end of Larcombes Road, Reedy Marsh, which is contained

within the Draft Meander Valley Local Provisions Schedule of the Tasmanian Planning

Scheme.

I welcomed in 2013 the Meander Valley Council’s rezoning of my land to the new category

of Environmental Living Zone. My land was originally in the Rural Zone of the 1995

Scheme and then became the Rural Resource Zone in the PAL amendment of 2007, despite

my objection. I have supported this ELZ residential rezoning on several occasions in drafts,

interim drafts, and still more drafts since 2007.

My land is currently within the Environmental Living Zone of the Meander Valley Interim

Planning Scheme 2013 (MVCIPS).

I welcomed also the reviewed sections of the Northern Regional Land Use Strategy, which

included revised strategy for Rural Living and Environmental Living, done in 2013 I recall.

The Version 6 of the NTRLUS specifically is supported as is previous versions but as for

any subsequent versions, they are simply malfeasant rubbish.

This representation supports the PPZ-Larcombes Road Zone and acknowledges that whilst

some of the issues, indeed several have been addressed by Meander Valley’s senior planner

that I remain unconvinced that this PPZ will have a smooth transition to finalisation. Thus

the substantial largely supporting justification, includes an alternate name of the PPZ as well

as some other suggestions intended to improve the zone.

The Particular Purpose Zone is the zone containing my three titles, CT/221026, CT/204936

and CT/134752, which are currently zoned Environmental Living (ELZ) at Reedy Marsh

within the Meander Valley Interim Planning Scheme 2013.

I am tending my thoughts regarding the plethora of problems, which the Tasmanian

Planning Scheme provides for any development opportunity for properties currently zoned

Environmental Living at Reedy Marsh. I would hope that out of a consideration of those the

PA 2



2

PPZ would represent an opportunity to move beyond the Environmental Living Zone

standard.

Council has stated in its FACT SHEET, Making a Representation to the Draft Meander

Valley Local Provisions Schedule:

“Local planning rules are applied through a Particular Purpose Zone, Specific

Area Plan or a Site Specific Provision and the justification required under the Act

to demonstrate why these rules should be included is an important factor.

Section 32(4) of the Act only allows for these provisions if:

• it relates to use or development that is of significant social, economic or

environmental benefit to the State, region or municipal area; or

• the area of land has particular environmental, economic, social or spatial

qualities that require provisions that are unique to that area of land.”

I am therefore providing a representation which describes relevant considerations within

such a justification and which, as well raises a number of minor issues including over

allowable development and various standards and thirdly deals with the issue of an alternate

name for this Particular Purpose Zone.

Some people, probably with limited planning expertise, artificially prevented the current

Meander Valley Interim Planning Scheme 2013 from translating into a finalised planning

scheme.

Instead, the Tasmanian Government has unilaterally engineered a new state-wide planning

scheme under the dishonest mantra of “Fairer Faster and Cheaper”. Those claimed benefits

are strongly disputed and in any case not necessarily in keeping with LUPAA Schedule 1

objectives. This I argue represents what can only be considered to be a dark age of land use

planning in Tasmania.

However, of specific relevance in engineering the Tasmanian Planning Scheme, The

Tasmanian Government (Minister Gutwein) failed to ensure there is a land use zone, which

allows a reasonable, fair, translation for the Environmental Living Zone within Meander

Valley’s current Interim Planning Scheme.

The Environmental Living Zone is a zone established within the state planning template,

supported by Regional Land Use Strategies, which were the product of years of substantial

community consultation and incorporated into many of the Interim Planning Schemes (IPS)

across the State.

The Liberal Government made a unilateral, so-called policy decision to remove

Environmental Living Zones in about 2014 without consulting the community in any way.

They had made up their own minds. As a participant in the RMPS, I, as a consequence,

remain disaffected and aggrieved.

The Environmental Living Zone (ELZ) at Reedy Marsh, significantly, is (for over 80% of

the area) delineated and enhanced by private covenanted land, protected under the Nature

Conservation Act, (a part of the RMPS) mostly supporting the Tasmanian Regional Forest

Agreement (RFA). My property supports two in-perpetuity conservation covenants

registered on my three private land titles in Reedy Marsh.

PA 2

3

Reedy Marsh landowners, working with the DPIPWE, designed the conservation covenants

across the ELZ, created under the Private Forest Reserve Program (PFRP), The Forest

Conservation Fund (FCF) or the Protected Areas on Private Land program (PAPL). The

conservation covenants across the ELZ reflect a combination of existing uses, together with

modest planned extensions and expansions of existing Use and nature conservation.

Significantly, the residents within the zone have supported the current ELZ at Reedy Marsh.

One could say strongly supported but this will be shown in the coming months in any case.

In Meander Valley, the most succinct amalgam of covenanted titles occurs in the area down

the end of Larcombes Road in Reedy Marsh. It is not the only amalgam but it is the most

coherent one. There are other spatial amalgams of conservation covenants, which deserve

some sort of planning recognition in the scheme. Some of those will be discussed in a

representation from The Environment Association.

NB: The cleared area down Larcombes Rd was the original Reedy Marsh area dating back

to the 1840s or so. Now the modern Reedy Marsh area generally is a location name, which

has subsumed the historic areas of Willowdale and Lower Meander, both closer to

Deloraine, to become quite a sizeable tract of land.

The modern Reedy Marsh (RM) area generally, that is the overwhelming numerical

predominance of titles, has long been favoured for Rural Residential development but there

are other land uses zoned in Reedy Marsh as well, including Environmental Living. Reedy

Marsh is probably the largest rural residential (Zoned Rural Living) area in Meander Valley.

The distinct and separate area of Reedy Marsh which is currently zoned as Environmental

Living Zone contains several properties, which are a particular form of what may

superficially be considered ‘rural residential’ but with an in-perpetuity conservation

covenant focus that is Environmental Living and is expressed with a spatial design of a

lower overall density of habitation. In fact, there are almost no rural (agricultural) activities

in the Reedy Marsh Environmental Living Zone of any sort. In general old historic cleared

land is reverting and this is considered to be a good thing.

‘Rural Living’ is a term, which invokes a lifestyle of living in the rural landscape in a rural

residential context outside of the urban growth boundary on larger lots but generally smaller

than in the Rural Zone or the Agriculture Zone.

Many rate payers who have such land pursue rural activities on a lifestyle basis including

management of livestock and other rural pursuits on a small to medium scale.

In the UK, this particular land use is referred to as ‘small-holdings’. But this is a broad

church with a wide range of activities and amenities. Importantly I assert ‘Rural Living’ is

not synonymous with ‘Environmental Living’, especially where the landowner becomes

also a reserve manager of an in-perpetuity, secure conservation reserve.

The History of the Reedy Marsh Environmental Living Zone Area

Several residences in the current Environmental Living Zone (due in the draft LPS to

become the Particular Purpose Zone – Larcombes Road) area of Reedy Marsh date back to

the 1960s and 70s and were built by new settlers of that era. From those times there was

always a strong ethic of caring for nature. The buildings reflected the times but were mostly

situated privately, set a very long way back from the public access road, achieving great

privacy. Most of those 1960s and 70s buildings survive today.

PA 2

4

Prior to the 2013 Meander Valley Interim Planning Scheme, in the original version of the

Meander Valley 1995 Scheme (MVPS), the area at the end of Larcombes Road was zoned

as either Low Density Residential or Rural. That was at a time when places which were

obviously residential in nature were zoned otherwise by Council’s planner at the time who

was also, as it turns out, a Gunns’ shareholder.

The State’s Protection of Agricultural Land (PAL) Policy then caused a planning

amendment in about 2007 to the MVPS 1995 with attendant massive community outrage

and opposition, especially from Rural Residential landowners, when it was forced upon the

community by the RPDC’s operatives.

Council’s Senior Planner, at the time of the PAL Policy MVC planning scheme amendment,

honourably and in good faith made commitments over the Rural Residential areas of the

Municipality.

My view is that the Senior Planner at Meander Valley Council has long and diligently

worked to deliver, including the latest MVC IPS 2013 Amendment 4/2015, which is fairly

claimed to be in line with the NTRLUS. That is both acknowledged and appreciated. That

Council effort included the current Environmental Living Zone.

Conservation Covenants Background

Conservation covenants are binding agreements, made voluntarily between a landholder and

the state government, to protect and enhance the natural, cultural and scientific values of a

piece of private land. They can apply to all or part of a property and are registered on the

title of the land and generally are intended to remain in force in-perpetuity.

Significantly, often such high conservation values are found as a priority on private land and

in general it is private land, which has a greater extent and a higher number of high

conservation biodiversity values in Tasmania. As you know the conservation covenants,

which are currently supported by Council, are binding on subsequent owners of the land on

which they are registered.

A covenant is a promise contained in a document under seal. Such a promise is enforceable

on the basis of privity of contract. The Minister administering the Nature Conservation Act

is the dominant tenement. There are remedies if a covenant is breached. Covenants are hard

to remove once placed on a title and most are in-perpetuity.

The standard covenant under the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act provides a specified

range of obligations to the owner of the private reserve. These may vary from one reserve to

another but are all clearly articulated and enforceable. There is a rigorous approach to nature

conservation and considerable time and individual negotiation is involved in establishing

each Covenant with the consequence that conservation covenants have substantial resilience

and integrity. They have a planned approach to the management of the subject land and can

include differing covenant zones which assist municipal planning in land use terms.

All conservation covenants on title under the Nature Conservation Act in the Reedy Marsh

ELZ are in-perpetuity. That is, they are more durable than planning schemes, planning

strategies and at the very least are at least as permanent as State Policies, but in truth

probably more so. And quite likely the covenants are more durable than Local Governments

themselves.

Some conservation covenants bind most or the whole of a title and some bind only a

portion. In Reedy Marsh ELZ the covenants usually protect the vast majority of the land. All

PA 2

5

but one covenant would require both Commonwealth and Tasmanian government agreement

for a revocation.

The Nature Conservation Act is, at least in theory, a part of the Resource Management

Planning Scheme and as such, shares some important common objectives with the Land Use

Planning Approvals Act.

Further, every covenant in the ‘PPZ-Larcombes Road’ (the current RM ELZ) has a

Management Plan attached to the Covenant, these are termed either Operations Plans or

Nature Conservation Plans, depending on the time when the covenant was created. This

management plan ensured an additional level of planning which is attached to the in

perpetuity covenant. The additional planning which is enshrined is both important and a

relevant consideration for the Local Government Planning Scheme and for the zone

provisions in this case the ‘PPZ-Larcombes Road’ area. The Management Plan can be

modified and updated by the Minister.

Both the Covenant and the Management Plan limit the range of activities which can occur

on the land. In the case of the current RM ELZ, the aggregate of those permissions or

restrictions should be a relevant consideration for the provisions, the standards and purposes

of any Particular Purpose Zone (PPZ) in the Meander Valley Local Provisions Schedule of

the Tasmanian Planning Scheme (TPS).

MV Council’s NRM Officer has been given a copy of all the covenants and plans, a

necessary requirement to be lodged with Council to qualify for the MVC Rates Rebate

Scheme.

The range of activities which are permitted on the land under the covenant have been

negotiated by each landowner and thus vary from title to title, covenant to covenant. The

conservation covenants are not a standard one size fits all document. Additionally there are

differences between PFRP, FCF and PAPL covenants. This complexity exists but

significantly does not negate any overall land use purpose which is common to the suite of

covenants down Larcombes Rd in Reedy Marsh.

With the exception of the Russell block, at 531 Larcombes Road Reedy Marsh, CT Volume

213657 folio 1, all conservation covenants in the current RM ELZ were established and

operational before the Meander Valley Interim Planning Scheme 2013. That is they all

predate the Scheme.

I assert that the covenant aspect of the current Reedy Marsh ELZ has the effect of lowering

and removing land use conflict and that this is an important aspect of the Zone which would

translate to the MV LPS through the ‘Particular Purpose Zone – Larcombes Road’.

To devote land for in-perpetuity conservation rather than economic gain is a significant

private landowner donation to future generations. This intergenerational aspect is one which

local government has a role in supporting. The RMPS also supposedly supports

intergenerational equity.

I have long been an advocate of private land conservation and reservation. Indeed within

Meander Valley, it is surely without dispute there remains much that remains to be done in

terms of stemming the decline of nature, protecting the natural environment and securing

native species for future generations. This problem for the survival of nature and for any

claim of sustainable development is exacerbated under the Tasmanian Planning Scheme

which has many deficiencies.

In-perpetuity conservation covenants on private land in Tasmania are a part of the National

Reserve System of Australia, which in itself deserves to be supported by local government.

PA 2

6

“The National Reserve System is Australia's network of protected areas, conserving

examples of our natural landscapes and native plants and animals for future

generations. Based on a scientific framework, it is the nation's natural safety net

against our biggest environmental challenges.

The reserve system includes more than 10,000 protected areas covering 17.88 per

cent of the country - over 137 million hectares. It is made up of Commonwealth,

state and territory reserves, Indigenous lands and protected areas run by non-profit

conservation organisations, through to ecosystems protected by farmers on their

private working properties.”

The next 20 years will be a critical period for biodiversity conservation in Australia. Now is

not the time for Council to distance itself from nature conservation.

Finally it should be recognised by Council that managing land for conservation is a valid

land-use activity requiring time, energy and private resources and yet generally for most rate

paying covenant owners their conservation reserves do not provide an income which offsets

that loss, which may likely have been avoided or mitigated through development.

It is undeniably a Public Interest for private land owners to be involved in permanently

conserving important elements of nature on private land. It is a feature of this area.

That philosophy is reflected too in the community work done at the time leading up to the

RFA to create what is now the Reedy Marsh Conservation Area. Such a public interest

formula which is expressed across more than one planning scheme zone should have strong

Council support via a range of mechanisms including land use planning.

Tangible local government planning support for private land owners who have jointly

committed their land to the in-perpetuity conservation of nature, priority vegetation and

threatened species in a logical spatial pattern at Reedy Marsh, in our municipality, is

welcome, competent and will become more important, as other philosophies and the greed

based Tasmanian Planning Scheme takes effect.

Particular Purpose Zone – My Preferred TPS Planning Option

I favour a Particular Purpose Zone be established over the current ELZ area of Reedy

Marsh. I have a number of reasons for choosing this option. Much of the remainder of this

paper explores reasons and relevant considerations that have lead me to this conclusion as

being the most suitable for the current ELZ area.

It must be said that I do not support using the reconfigured SPP Rural Living Zone (RLZ)

(D standard) as a replacement for the current Environmental Living Zone of the MVC IPS

2013.

I understand the Particular Purpose Zone approach:

“Requires a unique or tailored approach and the s.32(4) justification: - is of

significant social, economic or environmental benefit to the State, region or

municipal area; or - area has particular environmental, economic, social or spatial

qualities that require unique provisions.”

The current Environmental Living Zone (ELZ) area of Reedy Marsh, (down the end of

Larcombes Rd) is obviously and distinctly different to the area zoned as Rural Living (RLZ)

elsewhere in Reedy Marsh.

PA 2

7

The current ELZ does have different Planning Scheme standards to the RLZ, elsewhere in

RM, including the upcoming TPS SPP RLZ standards or even any of the MVC’s SAP

modified RLZs.

The physical ELZ area itself has a higher degree of both aesthetic and biophysical

naturalness, not only when compared with the RM RLZ zone, but when viewed with other

RLZ zoned areas in the MVC area. Council has an appalling record of ignoring scenic

landscape values and scenic landscape protection. It is indeed a pathetic record.

Because virtually all the properties within the current ELZ are covenanted, the ELZ also has

different biodiversity (covenant management) standards to the RLZ planning scheme ones

(such as may apply in the IPS ‘Priority Habitat (Biodiversity) Overlay’ currently.

One can see from the variously zoned landscape of Reedy Marsh, the change in the degree

of vegetation retention of important elements of the landscape between the four different

zoned areas within Reedy Marsh, being the ELZ, the RLZ, the Environment Management

Zone (EMZ) and the Rural Resource Zone (RRZ). This can be shown by way of reference to

the RFA’s Biophysical Naturalness mapping of 1996, compared with today. This mapping

can be shown to Council and the Tasmanian Planning Commission.

Although there is a couple of covenants within the RLZ area of Reedy Marsh, the

predominant approach to managing land in the RLZ remains, in the main, not consistent

with a covenanted title.

There are residents in the RLZ of Reedy Marsh who see little difference between the two

(residential zoned) areas (the RLZ and the ELZ) but those people, all too often after being

appraised of the conservation covenant schemes, rejected it or even made pejorative

comments over it. By contrast I have not heard a single comment from even one covenant

holder of the current ELZ in RM, who is unhappy or disdainful of their conservation

covenant/s. At least two landowners went through the process twice. There is a very high

level of acceptance of managing the land here for nature conservation purposes in

conjunction with sympathetic living functions.

The current Reedy Marsh ELZ area has a lower density of dwellings and human occupation

than the RLZ of Reedy Marsh. There are fewer large or even moderate areas of cleared land

in the ELZ than the RLZ of Reedy Marsh (RM). The titles in the ELZ are, on balance,

larger. Nor can they be subdivided to the new standards set out in the newly fabricated TPS

SPP RLZ (D), which I view as not even suitable for Reedy Marsh anyway.

The current ELZ area of Reedy Marsh, now proposed to be the ‘Particular Purpose Zone-

Larcombes Road’ under the draft LPS, starts at 335 Larcombes Rd and ends at 780

Larcombes Rd, stretching over a distance of 4.5 kms.

The ‘Particular Purpose Zone-Larcombes Road’ area occurs across the catchment divide

between the Rubicon and the Meander Rivers, thus including catchment headwater areas.

The ‘Particular Purpose Zone-Larcombes Road’ area is enveloped by, and the private land

intricately abuts and intertwines with, the Reedy Marsh Conservation Area (RMCA), a

secure reserve on public land, currently zoned Environmental Management Zone (EMZ).

The boundary between the two planning Zones (i.e. ‘Particular Purpose Zone-Larcombes

Road’ and EMZ) represents a complex interface with many boundaries. Virtually all private

titles within the ‘Particular Purpose Zone-Larcombes Road’ share common boundaries with

the RMCA public reserve, which makes up the whole of this EMZ. Indeed the SE section of

the ‘Particular Purpose Zone-Larcombes Road’ shares the whole or part of 22 property

PA 2

8

boundaries with the EMZ and in the NW section of the ‘Particular Purpose Zone-Larcombes

Road’ there are 15 common boundaries with the EMZ.

I would assert that the ‘Particular Purpose Zone-Larcombes Road’ area of RM potentially

would assist the management of the Environmental Management Zone and therefore the

Reedy Marsh Conservation Area, managed by The Parks and Wildlife Service, especially if

the ‘Particular Purpose Zone-Larcombes Road’ continues to attract sympathetic landowners.

One attracts sympathetic land use by having sound provisions and objectives and so forth as

well as appropriate zoning. I argue the ‘Particular Purpose Zone-Larcombes Road’ is an

appropriate zone.

Special Amenity

The amenity of the ‘Particular Purpose Zone-Larcombes Road’ is special. It has high

aesthetic and biophysical naturalness. The aesthetic and biophysical naturalness of

unprotected private forests all across the municipality is being ravaged and diminished.

It can be shown that other zonings under the MVIPS 2013, as well as previous schemes,

have allowed the Use of land to diminish both the biophysical as well as aesthetic

naturalness. Governments pay lip service to notions of sustainability.

People owning land in the ‘Particular Purpose Zone-Larcombes Road’ (PPZ) at Reedy

Marsh support retention of the natural values of this area, as well as more broadly. This

decision does not mean a donation of 100% of their land as National Park. Hence, this PPZ

is structured to allow some development in keeping with the existing amenity.

Evidence of a Residential Use in Harmony with Nature Design Purpose

A perusal of the covenanted areas across this PPZ at RM shows a nuanced range of

approaches with regard to how Residential Use is accommodated. The landowners, Hawkes,

Hoffman and Ricketts have all incorporated areas specifically designed to cater for

residential development within the reserve covenant structure and plan. That approach is

supported by the PPZ, which has been designed separately by MVC.

Other private owners in the PPZ have also, if to a slightly lesser extent, but also obviously

by design have set-aside land, excluded entirely from reservation, but clearly intended for

domestic purpose. This includes Howard, Russell, Woodward, Hawkes, Hoffman and

Ricketts. It is hard to conceive or perceive the covenant exclusion areas, which can be seen

spatially on the map, were suitable for any other purpose than a low impact domestic living

one. It is hard to conceive of any other possible use in the main for such areas.

Hoffman, Hawkes and Ricketts do have some additional cleared land excluded from

covenant which may exceed the domestic residential requirement of the Bushfire Code but

in all cases these relatively isolated and modest sized areas of old, historically cleared,

former farmland are not being used commercially and were only ever developed and used

on a mostly subsistence basis. The low mapped and actual land capability of Reedy Marsh,

especially in the PPZ, would support the general decision of current residents to not try to

rely of such land for an income from agriculture. That supports the claim that it is not RLZ

land.

PA 2

9

Spatially the land within the PPZ-Larcombes Rd falls within two clusters or enclaves,

around a narrow neck of public reserved land, - the Reedy Marsh Conservation Area

(RMCA). Hence, it is critical to consider the surrounding land use and zoning of the ELZ.

The zoning applied to the Reedy Marsh Conservation Area (RMCA) is the Environmental

Management Zone. The RMCA is a secure conservation reserve under the Nature

Conservation Act on public land. Thus in this location of Reedy Marsh there is a

substantially sized homogenous, largely natural, securely protected area, dedicated mostly to

nature conservation, with what should be two compatible uses in two Zones.

Sadly, it has to be said, the RMCA managed by the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service

has no Statutory Management Plan, nor in fact any management plan at all. Importantly, it

must be noted that all private covenanted blocks in the PPZ by comparison have a

management plan (termed either an operations plan or nature conservation plan) and

DPIPWE is meant to review those plans every 5 years.

There is only one block of land within the ELZ at Reedy Marsh, which does not have a

covenant, but is instead a Land for Wildlife title. The two previous owners have expressed

interest in having a covenant also and the land has just changed ownership. This land also

has high conservation values and is also managed for conservation beyond its residential

curtilage.

In Reedy Marsh, the ‘PPZ-Larcombes Road’ area contains 11 titles and 9 covenants. The

‘PPZ-Larcombes Road’ is significantly more remote from the town of Deloraine than the

Rural Living Zone elsewhere in Reedy Marsh. This is another point of difference.

Importantly, there remains within the ‘PPZ-Larcombes Road’ small portions of private land

which is not within the conservation covenanted areas of the various titles, that is, there is an

amount of land which can be developed. This includes the more significant areas size wise

on titles owned by Hoffman, Howard, Hawkes, Westley and Ricketts.

There remains within the ‘PPZ-Larcombes Road’ area a long standing presumption of

residential use, partially recognised since 1995.

There is a significant justifiable difference between the ‘PPZ-Larcombes Road’ and other

rural living zonings in Reedy Marsh or indeed elsewhere. The HCV values within the ‘PPZ-

Larcombes Road’ area have already been identified and recognised, as well as firmly agreed

to be protected in-perpetuity, between the owner and both the State of Tasmania and the

Commonwealth. This almost 100% conservation development across the titles was

recognised by MVC when it established the ELZ here. This ‘PPZ-Larcombes Road’ is the

only such zone within the MV LG area.

One of the particular benefits of the ‘PPZ-Larcombes Road’ zoning is that it continues to

legitimise, support and acknowledge that private conservation reserves do actually require

day to day management and a caretaker presence. This is an unfunded activity in the public

interest.

I argue it is very difficult to adequately manage a private reserve in absentia in Tasmania.

An organisation might manage it to some extent but for mere mortals, being on site has

unique and undeniable benefits.

Across the state of Tasmania there are now some 880 such private reserves covering some

110,000 Ha of land. A significant number of private reserves have owners who live on site

and care for, as well as protect the land. Where such reserves do not have a caretaker

presence, law breaking trespassers enter such land and often the result is illegal fire-

PA 2

10

wooding, 4WD activity and other unsympathetic, illegal pursuits, degrading the natural

values. As it is, there is a need to take a range of active measures to stop illegal trespass and

most private reserves have signage on display. Such signage should be allowed in the PPZ

without the need for a Permit.

Currently, in the Reedy Marsh ELZ, that is the ‘PPZ-Larcombes Road’ zoning, there are

several titles with modest development, which would lend itself to more development within

a sensitive context in the PPZ-Larcombes Road zone. This opportunity is discussed in a

table below.

The PPZ-Larcombes Road, zoned area is not suited to many of the Permitted and

Discretionary Uses allowed and listed in the TPS Rural Living Zone or the Landscape

Conservation Zone either. See the table of uses further on.

The setbacks (esp. front setback) in both the current ELZ of the MV IPS and the current

RLZ at Reedy Marsh were considered not appropriate for this area, if amenity is to be

retained into the future in the ‘PPZ-Larcombes Road’ zone. That is they are considered to be

too small.

Residents here, during the formation of the ‘PPZ_Larcombes Road’ zone, discussed further

with Council a recommended setback distance and Council listened, establishing a much

better distance of 50 metres front setback, which is roughly equivalent to that of the

dwelling at No 505, being the one most closely built onto the public street. This house is

visible from the street at that distance but some buffering vegetation is present. This

building was built in the 1970s and does not have a formal Bushfire Code area around it but

the owner has attempted such a modified zone.

My point is that in almost all cases, a considerably greater degree of setback than the IPS

standard or the TPS standard, including the new ‘PPZ-Larcombes Road’ zone setback

standard has been achieved down Larcombes Road, here in Reedy Marsh and very simply

can be achieved into the future. It is a critical issue, which demands a unique approach.

There is nothing to be gained by relaxing this standard. The new house at 335 Larcombes

Road incorporated a generous front setback, well beyond the 50 metres, which nicely

minimised its visibility despite other constraints. Such an approach as per No 335 protects

privacy from passing traffic.

The discreet, unobtrusive siting of the properties’ existing development (residences) is a

very valuable and unique aspect of the amenity of the area which is better supported via the

‘PPZ-Larcombes Road’ zone than by any other.

Landscape Conservation Zone Considered and Rejected

The Landscape Conservation Zone (LCZ) would clearly be detrimental to my personal

interests, as well as detrimental to the covenanted areas themselves because private land

reserve management, which is fully privately funded and organised, would become

marginalised through the economic pillaging the proposed LCZ’s zone provisions would

achieve.

The Landscape Conservation Zone (LCZ), if implemented, would make subdivision almost

impossible, even though one of my in-perpetuity conservation covenants allows it. Further

any house on any title within this unfair Zone would unfairly be Discretionary even when in

accord with the existing covenants. Even though my land is 90% conserved and in fact at a

policy level the proposed LCZ zone, without any public warning or State Policy, completely

PA 2

11

and unfairly changed the current purpose of the ELZ residential zone, obviously and

unjustly seeking to wreck the remaining current economic opportunity for people who have

wisely and generously conserved nature.

In fact, in my terms the proposed Landscape Conservation Zone would completely gut our

current Environmental Living Zone and would unfairly move the zone completely away

from being a residential zone.

The proposed Landscape Conservation Zone provisions would unfairly make selling land

for development much harder. Larcombes Road, Reedy Marsh is the only Environmental

Living Zone in Meander Valley and so it is obviously unique, if for no other reason than

that.

Let me be clear, I did not reserve my land by way of conservation covenant, which applies

to about 90% of my land, to make a complete donation. What an obnoxious outrage this

unfair TPS proposal would represent. I am not seeking to engage in speculation but I am not

going to tolerate the nullification of virtually all commercial opportunity.

I argue strongly it is not fair or reasonable that the then Minister Gutwein covertly embed

policy changes into the State Planning Provisions schedule of the TPS, when the planning

exercise (for those who accept the TPS) should have been to more transparently translate the

existing schemes into a state-wide one. This absence of a competent translation is not fairer.

It is not as fair - rather less fair in fact.

The proposal seeking to destroy the Environmental Living Zone is against the Northern

Tasmania Regional Land Use Strategy, (including Version 6 of May 2018), to which the

current Minister signed his support.

The TPS has established a Landscape Conservation Zone (LCZ) under the TPS and intends

some ELZ zoned land elsewhere in Tasmania would transfer into this new non-residential

zone land. The Reedy Marsh ELZ area is not a good fit for this zone.

The height limit in the LCZ is lower and unreasonable, unduly restrictive and not needed or

beneficial in the current RM ELZ. This is another reason for preferring the ‘PPZ-

Larcombes Road’ zone.

The TPS Zone LCZ allows industrial forestry as a Discretionary development. This outcome

and Use on the uncovenanted sections of land within the ELZ would degrade the area,

diminish the value of the land and diminish the enjoyment and wellbeing of residents. The

ELZ residents of RM generally have expressed an antipathy to forestry developments such

that even the dumbest of politicians and bureaucrats could not fail to recognise the enmity

and animus. The Conservation Covenants prevent and prohibit industrial forestry, so for

over 80% of the land in the ‘PPZ-Larcombes Road’ zone it is outlawed anyway.

Even when a property is a developed one, this proposed unfair Landscape Conservation

Zone would be highly likely to both harm land values and diminish the attractiveness of the

area, market wise. It would not benefit our Municipality to drive down economic

opportunity in the current Environmental Living Zoned area. Nor would it benefit the

biodiversity values. The proposed LCZ zone has no merit whatsoever, in fact. The

Landscape Conservation Zone is a gormless zone standard when compared to the context of

the alternate ‘PPZ-Larcombes Road’ zone.

To deprive landowners of their few remaining basic rights to development, when they have

in good faith and sincerely donated substantially towards the benefit of other species and our

international biodiversity obligations by reserving their own land is grossly unreasonable

PA 2

12

and offensive. To foist upon us such an un-transparent, adverse change as the Landscape

Conservation Zone represents, is against the State’s principles of sound land use planning.

Northern Regional Land Use Strategy and the Environmental Living Zone

The three Regional Land Use Strategies of Tasmania are the documents that supposedly

underpin the Draft State Planning Provisions of the Tasmanian Planning Scheme, so they

should have provided a considerable indication of community aspirations for land use in

Tasmania. It would seem although there was a Liberal commitment to retaining the

Strategies, they have been relegated to the diminished role of an inconvenient local truth.

The NTRLUS vision (In Version 6) 2018 identified for Northern Tasmania is:

“To create a region that through innovation and strong partnerships makes

intelligent use of its natural advantages to create a positive, affordable and

competitive future for all our communities.

By joining together, Northern Tasmanian councils and communities can create

platforms for sustainable economic prosperity while maintaining our beautiful and

unique environmental assets.

We will enhance the region’s attractiveness as a place to live, invest and visit; and

seek to enhance the quality of life for all both now and into the future.”

This regional vision has been in the NTRLUS until very recently.

I would, however, contend that currently the region appears unlikely to make a full and

intelligent use of its natural advantages under a Tasmanian Planning Scheme. Indeed there

remains no analysis of the worth or even a moderately complete appraisal of the extent or

worth of its natural advantages. Nonetheless the use of intelligence regarding the use of

natural advantages is intended in the NTRLUS.

Establishing a Particular Purpose Zone for Larcombes Rd area would be an intelligent

response to the unintended consequences of the removal of the current ELZ at Reedy Marsh,

when the IPS is replaced.

The Northern Tasmania Regional Land Use Strategy (NTRLUS) however supports the ELZ.

Therefore the pathway to have a PPZ responding to the NTRLUS, in the demise of the ELZ

but performing a similar function, would seem both a logical and desirable imperative were

the Objectives of LUPAA and the RMPS to be considered. The opportunity arises in such a

circumstance to improve on the existing IPS EL Zone.

The Minister’s disrespect for the purpose of the ELZ is an anathema to sustainable, sound,

fair and reasonable land use planning.

The Regional Land Use Strategy of Northern Tasmania Relevant Rural and

Environmental Living Policies and Actions

Below I comment on whether the Reedy Marsh Environmental Living Zone (ELZ) (the one

I live in and where my property is located) meets the Regional Land Use Strategy of

Northern Tasmania (NTRLUS) (Version 6) for relevant policies and actions. I also comment

on whether the policies are met using the draft Landscape Conservation Zone.

PA 2

13

POLICIES

RSN-P21 Rural and environmental lifestyle opportunities will be provided outside

urban areas.

Reedy Marsh ELZ meets the NTRLUS Policy RSN-P21, as the area is not urban. I consider

that the Landscape Conservation Zone does not meet RSN-P21. The Minister has stated as

much in the Explanatory document.

RSN-P22 Rural and environmental lifestyle opportunities will reflect established

rural residential areas.

Reedy Marsh ELZ meets the NTRLUS Policy RSN-P22. This is a long established area. I

consider that the Landscape Conservation Zone does not meet RSN-P22. The Minister has

stated his intention to recalibrate the zone and thus it no longer serves the area, in which I

live, in a reasonable manner.

RSN-P23 Growth opportunities will be provided in strategically preferred locations

for rural living and environmental living based on sustainability criteria and will

limit further fragmentation of rural lands.

Reedy Marsh ELZ meets the NTRLUS Policy RSN-P23, but noting that the term “rural

lands” is not defined. I consider that the Landscape Conservation Zone does not meet RSN-

P23 and indeed I argue growth opportunities are being closed down strongly and resolutely.

RSN-P24 Growth opportunities for rural living and environmental living will

maximise the efficiency of existing services and infrastructure.

Reedy Marsh ELZ partially meets the NTRLUS Policy RSN-P24 in that it is sited down an

existing long established Council maintained road and another road which has been in

existence since the 19th century. Some blocks are connected to the electricity grid and some

avoid such a service. Some blocks will be benefited by a communal water supply including

for firefighting purposes.

ACTIONS

RSN-A19 Rural living land use patterns will be identified based on a predominance

of residential use on large lots in rural settings with limited service capacity that

are outside urban areas.

Reedy Marsh ELZ fully meets the NTRLUS Action RSN-A19. There is no other

predominant Use than Residential here except Natural and Cultural Values Management.

RSN-A20 Planning schemes should prioritise the consolidation of established rural

residential areas over the creation of new rural residential areas.

Reedy Marsh ELZ meets the NTRLUS Action RSN-A20.

RSN-A21 Target growth to preferred areas based on local strategy and

consolidation of existing land use patterns.

Reedy Marsh ELZ meets the NTRLUS Action RSN-A21. We have long had a well-

considered local strategy for this land use pattern.

PA 2

14

RSN-A22 Planning scheme provisions must specifically enable subdivision

opportunity to preferred areas by setting minimum lot sizes based on locality.

Reedy Marsh ELZ does not necessarily meet the NTRLUS Action RSN-A22. But

importantly conservation covenants often preclude subdivision so for an ELZ such as Reedy

Marsh there would be land for new housing stock due to the presence of undeveloped titles

and through the occasional boundary adjustment.

RSN-A23 Ensure future locations of the Rural Living zone will not require extension

of the Urban Growth Boundary Areas, compromise productivity of agricultural

lands and natural productive resources.

Reedy Marsh ELZ fully meets the NTRLUS Action RSN-A23.

RSN-A24 Ensure future locations of the Environmental Living zone do not

compromise environmental values.

Reedy Marsh ELZ fully meets the NTRLUS Action RSN-A24. The level of in-perpetuity

conservation protection here is very high with only one title not permanently protected and

there is a high percentage of protected covenanted area per the overall land area of the titles

in the Zone. Landowners in the ELZ practice Natural and Cultural Values Management.

Because the Landscape Conservation Zone inappropriately has Resource Use as a

Discretionary Use and because of the vast array of exemptions accorded to it including

forestry and land clearing, I argue that the new LCZ does not meet RSN-A24

RSN-A25 Consolidation and growth of rural living and environmental living areas

is to be directed to areas identified in local strategy, that align with the following

criteria (where relevant):

· proximity to existing settlements containing social services;

· access to road infrastructure with capacity;

· onsite waste water system suitability;

· consideration of the impact on natural values or the potential land use

limitations as a result of natural values;

· minimising impacts on agricultural land and land conversion

· minimising impacts on water supply required for agricultural and

environmental purposes;

· consideration of natural hazard management;

· existing supply within the region;

· potential for future requirement for the land for urban purposes; and

· the ability to achieve positive environmental outcomes through the rezoning.

There has been a large amount of work, already done by MV Council’s Planners on this

subject, i.e. rural living and environmental living areas since the 2007 PAL debacle.

Potentially MV Council’s Amendment 4 of 2015 to its IPS fulfils that role and is especially

useful in discussing all the areas and all rural residential zonings. Some fine tuning,

PA 2

15

especially regarding the thorny issue of Minimum Lot Size, across the various residential

zones and over specific areas may be useful, as well as better setbacks. Meander Valley

Council’s Amendment 4 of 2015 to the MVC IPS 2013 is far more useful than the State

Planning Provisions of the TPS in my opinion.

Failure of the Tasmanian Planning Scheme and the Demise of the Environmental

Living Zone

During the TPS SPP Process the State of Tasmania, though its minions was appraised of the

failure of the SPPs to offer a viable pathway for the ELZ areas. Thus now the SPPs in the

context of the ELZ represent an abject failure which has thankfully been recognised by

Meander Valley Council in creating the ‘PPZ-Larcombes Road’ zone from the current ELZ.

Development Issues to be Addressed and Considered

Development Issues of the ‘PPZ-Larcombes Road’ zone to potentially be addressed or

further discussed are:

The scale and opportunity for any tourism or visitor related developments. This has

been limited to existing buildings of 300 metres yet the only existing building

appears larger than that floor area. The issue would be the fitness for purpose of the

public road, the level of wildlife kill after dark and the amount of visitation. We

would need a lower road speed on the unpaved Larcombes Road.

The Bed and Breakfast accommodation land use. That may be AirBnB or whatever.

The issue again would be the fitness for purpose of the public road for traffic

especially at night.

Wildlife Parks. I do not see this as appropriate, needing a tarred road. It is

mentioned because some may see it as an opportunity for the ‘PPZ-Larcombes

Road’ zone.

Biosecurity Issues are relevant and need to be included in the ‘PPZ-Larcombes

Road’ zone. Feral animals, native wildlife relocation, weeds, phytophpera. The

place remains free of a range of introduced diseases and pests. The Covenants deal

with such issues but those aspects are not supported in the Planning Scheme.

The number of domestic daily vehicle movements on Larcombes Rd especially the

after hours, night time use and wildlife damage is relevant. Larcombes Rd – is a

single lane gravel surface with limited width, subject to flooding in a number of

places, with a number of blind humps and or dips and is a dead-end road with a low

design speed. A significant increase in vehicle movements especially at night would

be an issue of concern.

Virtually all of the land within the PPZ-Larcombes Road zone has a relatively low

to very low land capability however some low impact horticulture and grazing is

practiced on land outside of the Covenants.

There is a number of artists who manufacture art and craft products within the

‘PPZ-Larcombes Road’ zone.

PA 2

16

Prohibited Developments

The Uses and Developments of land which are and should continue to be precluded

(Prohibited) entirely from the area include:

Industrial Forestry in all its forms. That is: Commercial native forest logging,

uncommercial native forest logging, illegal native forest logging , plantation

forestry (such as Forico’s), commercial firewood getting (widespread with much

being illegal). There have been no forestry developments within the PPZ-

Larcombes Road area for a period of about 45 years. The activity should be

regarded as locally extinct.

Subdivision - any entitlement should be determined by any allowances or approvals

contained within the covenant. (See elsewhere)

Any development which significantly increases pressure and traffic on Larcombes

Rd especially by people who are not familiar with the road.

Mining in any form. It is precluded in the conservation covenants.

More are listed briefly in the table further on.

The Uses and Developments of land which could be compatible with both the conservation

covenants and the road are:

Discretionary Developments

Bed and Breakfast accommodation:

Tourism (only where not precluded by a covenant) (and a modest scale would be

important re road use)

Permitted developments

Residential:

Home Office:

Craft Manufacture: (NB I am unsure of the exact category of development regarding

this activity but note there are a number of artists living in the PPZ-Larcombes Road

area.

Granny Flat: (Is a second smaller dwelling within a homestead curtilage)

Horticulture (and a modest scale would be important)

More uses and developments are briefly listed in the table further on.

Shed Issues and Rights

Most developed properties in the PPZ-Larcombes Road area have sheds. Indeed almost

anyone in Rural Meander Valley will have at least one shed. For the PPZ, I have attempted

to summarise in the table below.

PA 2

17

Size of Shed and rights to build and locate them is an issue to be addressed for inclusion in

the PPZ-Larcombes Road zone. No shed planning right should transgress the setbacks and

various clauses which maintain amenity, nor have any ability to be constructed within a

covenanted area. It is the size of buildings and their location which is at issue and whether

they require what easily becomes a substantial and expensive approval process when much

of the restrictions are already in place.

An associated issue is the one of rights regarding the extension of, or addition to a shed.

This is relevant to the PPZ-Larcombes Road zone.

Bushfire Hazzard

There have been no wildfires recorded in the Reedy Marsh ELZ since 1967. However there

have been escaped fires across Reedy Marsh outside of the ELZ, many of them lit by

humans. Those fires have been the result of ignorance, poor preparation, an absence of

standards, varying levels of negligence, wanton neglect, delinquently lit and poorly

controlled and some obviously illegal, some by forestry players.

There is no community fire plan. Currently the Tasmania Fire Service is doing a community

consultation, encouraging better emergency planning regarding fire. This is supported. The

fact is the contiguous natural forested values mean that there is a bushfire hazard in this

area.

There remains no adequate regulation of fire in Tasmania. The Bushfire Code disadvantages

landowners in the PPZ-Larcombes Road area but in general such an instrument is supported.

This submission does not deal with the inadequacies of the SPP’s Bushfire Code, as I am

almost prevented from doing so.

Landscape conservation

In regards to scenic landscape conservation there has been no adequate study which seeks to

understand lowland landscape values. The MV area contains sections of such country with a

range of values, these are in the main declining. This ‘PPZ-Larcombes Road’ area has some

important examples which should be conserved in the MV LPS scheme. Indeed the whole of

Larcombes Road has scenic attributes which currently could be lost, especially under the

TPS and the MVC LPS.

Water Tanks

For this ‘PPZ-Larcombes Road’ area, regardless of the land’s water resources there is a need

for water tanks and a generous amount of domestic storage. I see little point in limiting the

ability of landowners to install more water, including water for bushfire fighting, as long as

it meets setbacks and is outside of the covenanted area. Forcing a planning permit for the

building or installing of water tanks would appear senseless in the circumstances.

Wind Turbines

The area (Reedy Marsh) and this ‘PPZ-Larcombes Road’ zone is very important lowland

habitat for the Endangered Wedge Tailed Eagle. It also contains habitat for the Critically

Endangered Swift Parrot and some very good habitat for the Masked Owl. Non-listed

raptors such as the Collared Sparrowhawk are also present.

The established fact is that Wind Turbines chop up birds. I seek there be a clause in the PPZ

which ensures no wind turbines in the PPZ-Larcombes Road area please!

PA 2

18

Solar Panels and Tower Supports

Solar panels have no moving parts and are benign. There should not be restrictions on their

installation including on tower supports up to the 8.5 metre limit to overcome winter

shading. Putting the panels on a tower is better than chopping down a swathe of forest

which may actually be listed or rare and which certainly has both habitat and amenity value.

Covenant Subdivision Rights

In this area much of the 19th century cadastre remains intact. This is relatively common in

Tasmania.

Often (but not always) conservation covenants preclude subdivision. However there are

some titles here with rights to subdivide and this is a relevant consideration for the ‘PPZ-

Larcombes Road’ zone.

Properties with Subdivision Rights:

Owner Address, Title or UPI Description

Westley 400 Larcombes Rd Right of one subdivision event specified in the Conservation covenant.

Woodward 700 Larcombes Rd Right of one subdivision event specified in the Conservation covenant.

Ricketts 780 Larcombes Rd on CT 221026

Brady’s Creek, one new parcel, min size 30 acres, as specified in the Conservation covenant.

My recommendation is: Subdivision rights should accord with the covenants and the PPZ-

Larcombes Rd should not undermine nor negate rights negotiated as a part of the covenants.

The covenants almost all predate the MVC IPS 2013. Such a standard would protect the area

because the remaining subdivision rights are very minor. This is more relevant than the IPS

clauses or the clauses in the draft ‘PPZ-Larcombes Road’ zone provisions.

Table of Undeveloped Titles

Undeveloped Titles:

Owner Particular title/s Number of Titles

Hoffman Part of 450 2

Hawkes Part of 464 1

Woodward CT 150137/1 and 150137/2 2

Ricketts CT 204936/1and 134752/1 2

PA 2

19

TOTAL 7

The above table does show there is a moderate development outcome to be facilitated under

the PPZ Larcombes Road area by developing the vacant land.

Table of Little Developed Titles

This table identifies land which currently has some form of dwelling but which may be

considered somewhat primitive or rudimentary by modern standards, where an obvious

domestic development opportunity could arise.

Owner Particular title/s or address

Number of Titles

Westley 400 Larcombes Road 1

Hawkes 500 and 490 Larcombes Road

2

Russell 531 Larcombes Road 1

Howard Formerly 591 Larcombes Road

1

TOTAL 5

The above table does show there is a further development outcome to be facilitated within

the ‘PPZ Larcombes Road’ area.

Table of Existing Properties and their Dwellings

Dwellings, including houses:

Owner Address and Current Dwelling Other current building structure

Hawkes, Mike and Judy

House (Ex B&B residence) (two story), Wombat Way, 464 Larcombes Rd.

Old 1970s house, garage, gymnasium.


House, Acacia Park, 490 Larcombes Rd.

Farm Shed, Other sheds


House, The Burrow, 500 Larcombes Rd.

Shed.

Davies, Roger House, (two story), 505 Larcombes Rd.

Granny Flat(two story), carport, shed

PA 2

20

Owner Address and Current Dwelling Other current building structure

Howard, Ian obo Silvia and Pat

Dwelling, 591 Larcombes Rd. (unsure)

Hoffman, Neil House, (two story), 450 Larcombes Rd. Sheds

Russell, Bill (deceased) The Estate contact: Jacqui Russell

House, (two story log cabin), 531 Larcombes Rd.

Sheds and Garage

Ricketts, Andrew

Dwelling, Bradys Creek, 780 Larcombes Rd.

Cabin (dwelling), Water tanks and solar panel tower, 4 Sheds, Bushfire Shelter and Carport and shipping container.

Woodward, Annemaree

(no dwelling), Aeolia, 700 Larcombes Rd.

none

Westley, Shane Railway Fettlers Accommodation, (hut), 400 Larcombes Rd.

(unsure)

Pearce, Niq and Emma Bennett

New House, 335 Larcombes Rd. (unsure)

Existing Qualities and Characteristics of the Particular Purpose Zone Larcombes

Road in Reedy Marsh and Connections to Place

The following is a brief list (not in any order of priority) of salient and notable features,

existing qualities, characteristics and connections to Place within the Particular Purpose

Zone Larcombes Road in Reedy Marsh.

The Place is forested with small to very small intermittent historic, mostly 19th century

clearings. Sporadic occurrences of residential dwellings are the discreet visual pattern. This

has the effect that the Place has a high degree of privacy.

This mostly forested Place is characterised by a dominance of high visual amenity of in-

forest views coupled with a natural ambience, including abundant wildlife. Threatened

species are obviously present here, even to a relatively untrained eye. The community in this

Place has a demonstrable commitment to the conservation of nature.

An intactness of the landscape, including a high aesthetic naturalness, is a strong feature of

the Place. As such it can be considered the Place has a feeling of remoteness without being

inaccessible. The Place is peaceful and quiet.

The community practices an avoidance of degradation of natural values. There are no recent

clearfell, no modern land clearance, no industrial firewood getting, no degradation of

riparian areas and so forth.

The Place has a very slow turnover of land ownership with a high proportion of landowners

from 1991 and before remaining. There is virtually no land speculation and that has

remained the case over a long period. There is a slow turnover of rental tenants.

PA 2

21

Indeed the Place has a slow growth of development. Developments are usually planned

carefully and considerately. Modest changes in development occur intermittently and

occasionally. Mostly small scale of development is the dominant paradigm. The community

in this place has, over a long period, practiced an avoidance of brash or crass development.

Significantly, powerlines are not routed along public roads in this Place, giving a 19th

century feel. There is nothing larger than ‘Minor Utilities’ here. Some properties are on the

grid and some are off it. There is no grid power beyond 531 Larcombes Rd. Opportunities

for living with remote power therefore exist in the ‘Particular Purpose Zone Larcombes

Road’ in Reedy Marsh.

The place is served by a public, narrow ‘no-through road’ of 19th century character and

design, with attendant amenity gains. The place has almost no volume of traffic. The Place

has roadside vegetation which in part is listed as Threatened and the remnant old growth

trees, right up to the roadside have been retained and highly valued by the residents. Limited

slashing of roadsides and no spraying of roadsides are the preferred outcome.

Within the ‘Particular Purpose Zone Larcombes Road’ there are very few weeds in

roadsides. Likewise the properties here have either few or negligible weeds. This is in stark

contrast to elsewhere in Reedy Marsh including the gorse infested Private Timber Reserves.

Sadly there is the odd Sycamore in the SE of the area.

The place has no significant or commercial agriculture whatsoever. The land here has, in the

main, a low land capability with relatively thin, poor rocky or sandy soils. The ‘Particular

Purpose Zone Larcombes Road’ area is not agricultural land. Any agriculture practiced here

now would be low impact, of very small scale and oriented around a high value situation,

which benefited perhaps from the useful biosecurity opportunity. The entrapments of

agriculture are not evident other than some remnants from the past – the antiquity of past

land uses which have now long ceased is coupled with reversion in some parts of the area a

less obvious feature.

Surprisingly this lowland but hilly place has a range of altitudes, aspects and micro climates

but in any case it is almost always a protected, temperate Mediterranean climate with some

inland continental influences, more rainfall than say Launceston, as well as benefitting from

the influence and protection afforded by Stephens Hill. This is an area at the foot of and on

the slopes of Stephens Hill. The catchment divide situation means the water resources are

both minor and relatively unpolluted.

The character of the 1970s settlement and ‘back to the land’ dwellings still remains a feature

with 5 buildings but may vanish unless recognised.

Residents have a strong attachment and sense of place. The above qualities of the area

engender this response to the proposal for a Particular Purpose Zone-Larcombes Road in

Reedy Marsh.

The effect of the substantial retention and protection of natural forest means the PPZ-

Larcombes Road area would likely overall be increasing carbon stocks, even when past

development is considered. This has not been quantified.

Desired Future Character

It is important that a Desired Character statement be included to guide development in the

Zone.

PA 2

22

Discussion of Purpose in Various Zones and their Suitability for the Particular

Purpose Zone at Reedy Marsh

Original draft 2017 Council zone purpose: “Residential use where natural and landscape

values are to be retained.”

My 2017 Suggested Purpose: “Discreet and unobtrusive Residential use where natural and

landscape values are being conserved, protected and retained.”

Current, 2018, Particular Purpose Zone-Larcombes Road Zone Purpose:

“MEA-P1.1.1 To provide for residential use or development in the Larcombes Road

area at a very low density, consistent with the natural and local landscape values of

the zone.

MEA-P1.1.2 To provide for compatible, non-residential use that is low impact and

does not cause an unreasonable loss of amenity through scale, intensity, noise,

traffic generation and movement, or other off site impacts.”

I will continue to argue for some of my word suggestions such as “unobtrusive” for example

be added.

Table of Uses and their Suitability for the Particular Purpose Zone-Larcombes Road

at Reedy Marsh

Use Classes Considered: Permitted Absent a Permit, Permitted with a Permit, Discretionary

and Prohibited.

USE Recommended Permit Status

Comment or Reason

Art & Craft Centre Discretionary Causes additional visitation.

Arts and Crafts Manufacture

Permitted absent a Permit

Unlikely to cause significant additional visitation nor would it be a disruption through noise etc. Some current use.

Boundary Fencing. Discretionary Some covenants have clauses regarding boundary fences. Wildlife does not benefit from fencing.

Note the Boundary Fences Act provides for Agreements.

Carport Permitted with a permit

Provided setbacks are met and no bushfire hazard accrues.

Childcare Centre, school, existing respite centre.

Prohibited Inappropriate for the area. Would damage sense of place. Road not suitable. Bushfire hazard concern and traffic considerations.

Church, public hall. Prohibited As above

PA 2

23


Comment or Reason

Commercial Firewood Getting.

Prohibited Most covenants Prohibit Commercial Firewood.

Domestic animal boarding/breeding/ training.

Discretionary See the Covenants: within a Covenant Area domestic zone or exclusion area designed for the Purpose.

Emergency Services. Discretionary (Regarding infrastructure)

Food Services 200m2 Discretionary See the Covenants: within a Covenant Area domestic zone or exclusion area designed for the Purpose.

Granny Flat: in either a building area on a sealed plan or within a Covenant Area domestic zone designed for the Purpose.


See the Covenants: within a Covenant Area domestic zone or exclusion area designed for the Purpose.

Grazing. Small scale. Permitted absent a Permit

In areas where permitted within a Covenant such as a Domestic zone or outside of the Covenanted area.

Would be limited by land capability and the size of any suitable area.

Home based business. Permitted with a Permit

Only issue here would be level of traffic.

Home based Childcare Discretionary Depends on scale of operation. There are the Bushfire Hazzard issue and traffic considerations.

Home Office Permitted absent a permit

Outside of the Covenanted area or in a Domestic Zone.

Horticulture Permitted absent a permit

In line with Management Plan activities and standards permitted within a Covenant or outside of the Covenanted area.

Manufacturing. Prohibited

Unless for arts and crafts (see above). Other manufacturing would be inappropriate for the area. Would damage sense of place.

Mining. (Including Fracking)

Prohibited All covenants Prohibit mining. Inappropriate for the area. Would damage sense of place.

Natural Cultural Values Management.

Permitted Absent a Permit


Outdoor recreation facility. Discretionary Depends on scale of operation.

PA 2

24


Comment or Reason

Passive recreation. Permitted Absent a Permit


Religious Retreat, but not including hospital services or a drug rehabilitation centre

Discretionary In line with standards permitted within a Covenant or outside of the Covenanted area.

Resource Development (intensive animal husbandry or plantation forestry)

Prohibited To the best of my knowledge all covenants Prohibit such activities

Resource Development. (Native Forest Logging)

Prohibited To the best of my knowledge all covenants Prohibit

Resource processing. (e.g.: abattoir, animal saleyards, sawmill and others)

Prohibited Inappropriate for the area. Would damage sense of place

Resource processing. Small scale: (for example Honey processing)

Discretionary Potentially appropriate for the area. Would not damage sense of place if at small scale.

Retail associated with primary produce, resource development, local shop

Prohibited Inappropriate for the area. Would damage sense of place. Road not fit for purpose.

Shed: Extension to existing approved structure. Not more than 50% increase on original and approved structure.

Permitted absent a permit

Should not require planning as there is already an approved structure in a planning sense. Provided zone setbacks are met and no bushfire hazard accrues. Limitation: Up to 50% or the existing floor area. To the same approved standard. And no additional bushfire hazard accrues.

Shed: New – Larger- over 120 sq. metres.

Permitted with a permit

Provided zone setbacks are met and no bushfire hazard accrues.

Shed: New – Smaller, say 120 sq. metres and smaller.


Provided setbacks are met and no bushfire hazard accrues.

Single dwelling. Discretionary See above.

Single dwelling: in either a building or domestic area on a sealed plan or within a Covenant Area domestic zone designed for the Purpose.


See the Covenants: within a Covenant Area domestic zone or exclusion area designed for the Purpose.

No limitation as to coverage or size of the structure apart from max height.

PA 2

25


Comment or Reason

Tourist Operation. Discretionary Refer to Conditions on Covenant. Some covenants prevent tourism. Concerned about level of use of Larcombes Rd, esp. after dark.

Utilities – Minor. Discretionary Any extension should be underground. Far safer underground in bushfire terms.

Utilities – Remote Power and NBN


When ancillary to a domestic building or shed. Underground, except towers.

Utilities. Prohibited Inappropriate for the area. Would damage sense of place.

Vehicle fuel sales & service

Prohibited Inappropriate for the area. Would damage sense of place.

Veterinary centre. Prohibited Inappropriate for the area. Would damage sense of place.

Visitor Accommodation. Discretionary Refer to Conditions on Covenant. Some covenants prevent this use. Concerned about level of use of Larcombes Rd. Scale is relevant.

Water Tanks to 180,000 L Permitted absent a permit

Provided setbacks are met and no bushfire hazard accrues. Tanks to be bushfire resistant.

Other tanks (than water) to require a permit.

Wildlife Park. Prohibited Road not fit for purpose. Biosecurity Issues

The above table and list represents preliminary thoughts but this is a complex table of uses

and I would remain open to further discussion, one way or the other. This table is a work in

progress and may not be complete.

Discussion of Development Standards in Various Zones and their Suitability for the

Particular Purpose Zone at Reedy Marsh

As per Council’s headings:

Site Coverage

Unsure about this standard.

PA 2

26

Building Height

This needs to allow for two story houses and infrastructure such as towers for solar panels

and water header tanks. Eight or 8.5 metres allowance would be wise and would not present

intrusiveness problems on almost all sites. After all the surrounding native tree canopy is 25

to 35 metres.

Front Setback

This is a critical issue, not only in the public road section of the zone in the SE but in the

NW section too which is served by a privately maintained road. All of the current setback

standards could be considered to be a marginal distance.

The former Davies’ house at 505 would be the one property with the shortest front setback

distance. There should be no further developments with a lesser minimum setback distance

than 50 metres. Recently the 335 Larcombes development achieved quite a respectful and

reasonable degree of privacy with a greater setback and improved unobtrusiveness, given

the site.

Side and Rear Setback

These setbacks are less of an issue and are fine.

Setback to Rural/Agriculture Zones

I see little point in discussing this aspect in detail. My views on PAL are known. I have long

considered the 200 m setback represents an unreasonable donation by the rate payers of the

Particular Purpose Zone-Larcombes Road.

Because of the permanently protected forested environment, the setback could be allowed to

be relaxed and still achieve the PAL goal. That relaxation clause should be a part of the

Particular Purpose Zone-Larcombes Road.

There are a few properties in the ‘Particular Purpose Zone-Larcombes Road’ at Reedy

Marsh which have a boundary to the Rural Resource Zone - Such as Hoffman, Westley,

Howard and Ricketts. All of those boundaries also happen to be onto Private Timber

Reserves.

The creation of all of those PTRs was challenged and appealed by whatever means possible

by residents. All of the PTRs these days are managed by absentee landowners. So this issue

remains relevant, as the adjoining PTR activities are universally considered by rate payers to

be unsustainable, adverse, not in keeping with the values of the area and noxious.

Exterior Finishes

Not really relevant, if good setbacks are achieved.

Road Access – new dwellings

Yes. All should be Permitted.

Landscape Protection

Yes. This should be applied to the area.

PA 2

27

The Critical Issues

The physical and legal road access, both Council maintained sections and the privately

maintained roading and regardless of its tenure and legal status, considering its fitness for

primarily a domestic purpose only and the amount of traffic any development proposal

would generate.

The long standing domestic residential use of the area and the desirability of a community

which respects and engages in modest, careful development that is compatible with and

supporting of the Secure conservation reserves on private and public land and which

maintains and enhances our sense of place.

The opportunity of a PPZ is to strengthen the high natural qualities of the area as identified

above which will enhance the best and highest value whilst supporting the intended purpose

in my view.

A generously large front setback figure to ensure seclusion and remoteness is not damaged.

The substantial range of Prohibited and Discretionary Uses.

The 200 metre setback clause.

The name of the Zone.

Additional Development Issues

The following matters need to be included in the Particular Purpose Zone for this area.

Standards and rights should be considered and established.

1. Land Clearance for Purposes as Authorised on Land within a Domestic Zone or

Other Special Purpose or Miscellaneous Zone within a Conservation Covenant under the

Nature Conservation Act.

2. Land Clearance for Purposes as set out in the Planning Scheme Particular Purpose

Zone on land within a title which has Covenanted Land but where the land is outside of the

Conservation Covenant under the Nature Conservation Act as shown on the relevant CPR

Plan.

Importantly, it must be noted land clearance is otherwise prohibited under a Conservation

Covenant under the Nature Conservation Act.

It should also be noted that within the current Environmental Living Zone at Reedy Marsh

there is a majority of covenants, which do not have Domestic Zones but more simply

exclude such areas from the covenant. Then there are 3 covenants, which do have Domestic

Zones, which will translate into five titles.

Domestic Zones under a covenant provide an additional level of management control by

way of the covenant and its management plan than can be exercised where an Exclusion

area has been constructed.

It should be noted that there are Exclusion areas within the ELZ, which are larger than

would be necessary for a domestic area, as I have stated in my original submission.

However, most of those areas (but certainly not all) are over already cleared land, although

some of that has reverted.

PA 2

28

There are also Domestic Zones, which have regrowth forest, reverted cleared land,

silvicultural regeneration, as well as patches of intermittent native pasture and some high

quality forest in old growth condition. The point is that such areas are not devoid of

ecological values but that generally such areas were selected by the owners because the

values were considered to be lower, the areas more disturbed. The areas are also more

appropriate for a range of other reasons, such as access for example, as places where

development could occur.

It should be remembered that the proposals to either exclude or zone such areas for domestic

use and development were vetted by both the State and Commonwealth Governments at the

time of negotiating and creating the covenants, mostly under the RFA.

Owner and Address Covenant

Domestic

Zones

Exclusion

Areas

Hawkes, Mike and Judy: Wombat Way, 464 Larcombes

Rd.

YES NO

Hawkes, Mike and Judy: Acacia Park, 490 Larcombes Rd. NO YES

Hawkes, Mike and Judy: The Burrow, 500 Larcombes Rd. NO YES

Hawkes, Mike and Judy: (A small title between 464 and

490)

NO YES

Formerly Davies, Roger: 505 Larcombes Rd.

(Just changed hands)

Not

applicable,

no covenant.

Not

applicable

Howard, Ian obo Silvia and Pat Howard: formerly 591

Larcombes Rd.

NO YES

Hoffman, Neil: 450 Larcombes Rd. (3 titles) YES YES

Russell, Bill (deceased) Estate: Jacqui Russell: 531

Larcombes Rd.

NO YES

Ricketts, Andrew: Bradys Creek, 780 Larcombes Rd. NO YES

Ricketts, Andrew: Echidna Creek, 780 Larcombes Rd. YES NO

Woodward, Annemaree: Aeolia, 700 Larcombes Rd. NO YES

Westley, Shane: Hollybank, 400 Larcombes Rd. NO YES

Pearce, Niq and Emma Bennett: Ruby Rise, 335

Larcombes Rd

NO YES

It should be noted that a Covenant with areas on title that are simply excluded

(unencumbered) is generally a simpler document. However, it must also be noted that there

is a potential for activities on ‘exclusion areas’ to impact adversely on the covenanted

portion of the title.

PA 2

29

I do not think there should be a blanket right to completely clear any ‘exclusion area’ of

vegetation but that a blanket prohibition is also unreasonable.

Rights in the PPZ should be oriented towards assisting the intention to have a residential

development, whilst conserving the ecological values. After all, landowners have

permanently and securely protected the overwhelming majority of their private land, a

vastly greater contribution to the public good than anywhere else in the municipality.

A domestic dwelling requires a clearance area around the dwelling to mitigate against

bushfire attack and to meet the Bushfire Hazzard Code. Reedy Marsh around Stephens Hill

has not been subject to catastrophic bushfires in recent memory. The ability to meet the

Code and to have a safe environment around one’s house is a reasonable goal for sustainable

development.

When one looks at Council’s Priority Vegetation mapping one can see that much of the

Covenant Domestic areas and exclusion areas are either cleared or not supporting Priority

Vegetation. But not quite all and in any case the mapping generally across the municipality

is only about 60% accurate. In essence, however these properties already have vegetation

reports, which largely clarify vegetation values.

I have come to the conclusion that land clearance over the exclusion areas and domestic

zones should be allowed without requiring a vegetation report.

An Alternate Name for the Zone

A new name for the zone currently titled “Particular Purpose Zone-Larcombes Rd” (at

Reedy Marsh) in the Meander Valley Local Provisions Schedule is discussed below and

recommendations made.

In Ms Oliver’s email to residents of the 30th November, 2017 she stated: “Two residents

have suggested naming the zone ‘Particular Purpose Zone – Natural Living Reedy Marsh’. I

would appreciate any comments or suggestions anyone may have in regard to this before I

wrap up the draft zone for next week.”

This is therefore, a response and a further explanation of my thoughts about the proposed

name for our new (draft) Particular Purpose Zone (PPZ), which in fact I have proposed and

which you have circulated to residents by email, that is: ‘Particular Purpose Zone –

Natural Living - Reedy Marsh’

I consider the name of our land use planning zone, which replaces our Environment Living

Zone to be important, as people looking to buy property, increasingly want to know which

zone they will be buying into when they purchase a property and of course, what its

standards and purposes to be etc. It is also a marketing tool and a useful way of promoting

the current amenity and values of the area.

Currently in the Meander Valley Interim Planning Scheme 2013, the name of our land use

planning zone is “The Reedy Marsh Environmental Living Zone” (ELZ). This name will,

unfortunately, be removed and a similar replacement, inexplicably, not allowed when we

transition to the Tasmanian Planning Scheme. It seems we are subject to a pathological

hatred

The ELZ became a valid part of the state planning template, created at the time of Labor’s

regionalised Interim Planning Schemes process, which created Meander Valley’s current

Interim Planning Scheme 2013. And indeed, it was pursuant to the Northern Tasmania

PA 2

30

Regional Land Use Strategy. The Reedy Marsh Environmental Living Zone is the only such

zone in the Meander Valley. It is unique state-wide in fact.

The cheap and nasty State Planning Provisions of the Liberal Tasmanian government’s

Tasmanian Planning Scheme, unilaterally removed the Environmental Living Zone. This

was criticised over and over but it persisted.

The Guidelines, written by the TPC, suggests the Landscape Conservation Zone (LCZ)

should be a replacement for the Environmental Living Zone. Meander Valley Council’s

Senior Planner, saw that this LCZ would not be a fit for our area. Others, including the

writer, objected strongly to the term Landscape Conservation Zone and importantly objected

to the zone’s inadequate and ill-considered provisions as well. This zone may have worked

in a municipality in southern Tasmania with particular development issues but it does not

work here.

It was suggested that a ‘Particular Purpose Zone’ could be appropriate and Council has

agreed. This, as you know, is a custom provision where the Council can design the zone the

way it prefers. A ‘Particular Purpose Zone’ is one of the few ways of overcoming the

incipient problems of a very inflexible set of State Planning Provisions (SPP), which

doubtless will manifest repeatedly not only in Meander Valley. The PPZ, is a good solution

for this area, in the circumstances and I forecast residents will support it.

The version in the draft LPS of the ‘Particular Purpose Zone’ for our area, gave our zone a

name of ‘Larcombes Road’. I remain uncomfortable with this name and gave reasons for

other choices and proposals by way of submission dated the 12th November 2017 and on 2nd

December 2017.

It must be noted the Hodgeman Liberal Government has antipathy to the word

“Environmental” and indeed the term ‘Environment Management Zone’ is already in use in

the SPP part of the Tasmanian Planning Scheme. Likewise, the term “Conservation” is

obviously already in Use in the SPP.

There is also a substantial problem with the term: “Particular Purpose Zone - Larcombes

Road” in my opinion. The problem is simply that Larcombes Road is not a particular

purpose at all. It is a location! That in itself, may adversely affect the PPZ zone’s survival.

Far better, in my opinion, to articulate the purpose of the zone in the name itself.

Our ‘PPZ-Larcombes Road’ ideally needs both a location and a purpose. The location

however, is the easy part. I have already suggested to Council, either the Locality of ‘Reedy

Marsh’ or geographical feature of ‘Stephens Hill’ should be included in the zone name.

Larcombes Road in my opinion is somewhat less adequate when compared to the previous

two choices but would be a third choice. Our formal Locality name is Reedy Marsh and that

land locality boundary is in regular use, so people can find Reedy Marsh easily. The whole

of the ‘PPZ-Larcombes Road’ is within the Locality of Reedy Marsh. That clarity is an

advantage when dealing with land. I strongly favour the use of the Locality in our zone

name and that is my first preference.

Returning to the purpose and my choice of name for the “Particular Purpose Zone -” here

at Reedy Mash. By the way, as you know, our zone must be baptised with the generic

“Particular Purpose Zone -” followed by some descriptor or identifying name, I argue that

needs to be a term, which includes the purpose of the zone. And if it is not for a particular

purpose then it would be a concern were the Tasmanian Planning Commission to not

approve it but rather substitute something else, that is, some other zoning.

PA 2

31

Thus, we come to consider the purposes of the existing ELZ zone here: One purpose is a

residential one albeit at very low density, another purpose is the conservation of nature in

such a way as to consider the very low density residential purpose.

In almost all cases (on all titles), the residential purpose came first, perhaps because

conservation covenants on private land are relatively new, starting a few years after the

commencement of the 1997 Regional Forest Agreement.

Although there was originally some subsistence rural activity in the area in convict and

colonial times that has long dissipated, such that now even the names ‘rural residential’ or

‘rural living’ would be both redundant and incorrect.

In terms of a name for the zone: I suggest again the ‘Particular Purpose Zone (PPZ) –

Larcombes Rd’ should be termed: ‘Particular Purpose Zone – Natural Living - Reedy

Marsh’ or ‘Particular Purpose Zone – Natural Living - Stephen Hill’ if you wished to

separate the name of the various zones further.

I wish to demonstrate to Council the reasons for choosing the word Natural to partner the

word ‘Living’ as a descriptor for the zone. The underlining below is my emphasis.

Firstly, I take the term ‘Natural’ to mean the following:

1. From the Oxford Dictionary. “In accordance with the nature of, or circumstances

surrounding, someone or something.” Also: “Existing in or derived from nature;

not made or caused by humankind.” Again Oxford Dictionary.

2. From the Free Dictionary: “1. Present in or produced by nature: 2. Of, relating to,

or concerning nature: (such as) a natural environment. 3. Conforming to the usual

or ordinary course of nature.”

3. From Dictionary.com: “1. existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial): 2.

based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: 3.of or relating to

nature or the universe: 4. of, relating to, or occupied with the study of natural

science: 5. in a state of nature; uncultivated, (such as) as land.” And 6. growing

spontaneously, without being planted or tended by human hand, (such as) as

vegetation.

Conservation covenants dominate here and are binding agreements, made voluntarily

between a landholder and the state government, to protect and enhance the natural, cultural

and scientific values of a piece of private land under the Nature Conservation Act (NCA),

which is of itself a part of the RMPS.

In-perpetuity, conservation covenants on private land in Tasmania are a part of the National

Reserve System of Australia, which in itself deserves to be supported by local government.

This in itself is a significant public interest. The Commonwealth states:

“The National Reserve System is Australia's network of protected areas, conserving

examples of our natural landscapes and native plants and animals for future

generations. Based on a scientific framework, it is the nation's natural safety net

against our biggest environmental challenges.

The ‘PPZ-Larcombes Road’ area has a higher degree of both aesthetic naturalness and

biophysical naturalness, not only when compared with the RM Rural Living Zone (RLZ)

zone, but when viewed with other RLZ zoned areas in the MVC area. These two terms are

ones used in the Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) especially in the Comprehensive

Regional Assessment, made under the National Forest Policy Statement. Most of the private

land covered by in perpetuity conservation reserves in the zone was created under the RFA.

PA 2

32

There is a range of natural values, including the conservation of several threatened species

and poorly reserved and threatened vegetation communities. The area has abundant native

wildlife and that amenity is relatively unique in itself.

People owning land in the ‘PPZ-Larcombes Road’ at Reedy Marsh strongly support

retention of the natural values of the area. In this location of Reedy Marsh, there is a

homogenous largely natural securely protected area dedicated mostly to nature conservation.

In the recent draft of the PPZ zone Meander Valley Council states:

“The purpose of the Particular Purpose Zone – Larcombes Road is:

MEA-P1.1.1 To provide for residential use or development in the

Larcombes Road area at a very low density, consistent with the identified

natural values of the zone.

MEA-P1.1.2 To provide for compatible, non-residential use that is low

impact and does not cause an unreasonable loss of amenity through scale,”

In my November 2017 submission to Council I stated:

“An Objective of the Zone may be: To care for and maintain and enhance the

natural, aesthetic and environmental values within the area.”

The NTRLUS Version 6 identified a vision for Northern Tasmania which states:

“To create a region that through innovation and strong partnerships makes

intelligent use of its natural advantages to create a positive, affordable and

competitive future for all our communities.”

Nowhere does the “natural advantages” apply more than somewhere like the PPZ of Reedy

Marsh.

The NTRLUS ostensibly underpins the current MVC IPS 2013 planning scheme and will

(because of legislation) underpin the Local Provisions Schedule of Council within the

Tasmanian Planning Scheme. Making a good link to the NTRLUS will be important if the

TPS try to change the zone back to the standard SPPs.

Indeed, I wish to propose here and now that the Northern Tasmania Regional Land Use

Strategy Version 6 is a document, which is referred to in our Local Provisions Schedule to

make sure the connection is secure and that it can be relied upon.

This mostly forested place is characterised by a dominance of high visual amenity of in-

forest views coupled with a natural ambience, including abundant wildlife. Threatened

species are obviously present here even to a relatively untrained eye. The community in this

place has a demonstrable commitment to the conservation of nature.

An intactness of the natural landscape, including a high aesthetic naturalness, is a strong

feature of the Place. As such, it can be considered the Place has a feeling of remoteness

without being inaccessible. The Place is peaceful and quiet.

The community in the ‘PPZ-Larcombes Road’ area practices an avoidance of degradation of

natural values. There are no recent clearfells, no modern land clearance, no industrial

firewood getting, and no degradation of riparian areas, very few weeds and so forth. This in

itself is a public interest, which is facilitated to be an ongoing behaviour by the PPZ zoning.

PA 2

33

Current ELZ zone purpose states: “Residential use where natural and landscape values are

to be retained.”

You can, I hope, see the wide usage of the word ‘natural’ in the world of planning and in

relation to our PPZ-Larcombes Road area. This is not accidental.

In terms of a name for the zone: I thus wish to reiterate my recommendation that: the draft

name of “Particular Purpose Zone – Larcombes Rd” should instead be termed: ‘Particular

Purpose Zone – Natural Living Reedy Marsh’ or ‘Particular Purpose Zone – Natural

Living Stephen Hill’, if indeed Council wished to separate the name of the various zones

further.

It is certainly accepted and agreed that the associated words to natural such as: ‘naturalize’,

‘naturalist’, and ‘naturalism’ would not be suitable and have unusual connotations and a

different meaning. Those words should not be confused with the word ‘natural’.

The writer considered other terms besides ‘natural living’. The word ‘living’ would seem

the preferred land use planning descriptor for residential land outside of the Urban Growth

Boundary. So it has been used. Other terms besides ‘natural’ seem to not have as many

connections to various other aspects of the planning and strategy documentation but I have

considered others as well. See below:

I suppose there is the term: ‘Eco Living’ and that would translate to: ‘Particular Purpose

Zone – Eco Living - Reedy Marsh’ But I suspect the term ‘Eco’ or even ‘Ecological’ may

have a rocky road too under the Liberals dark age. But ‘Eco Living’ or ‘Ecological Living’

would be satisfactory. I do not think it is as satisfactory as ‘Natural Living’ because of all

the connections the word ‘natural’ has to other aspects of the Tasmanian planning system

and the National Reserve System, of which we are a part. It is not my first choice but would

do the job.

There could alternatively also be: ‘Sustainable Living’ and that would translate to:

‘Particular Purpose Zone – Sustainable Living - Reedy Marsh’. I must confess I have

little interest in the term ‘sustainable’, it is so abused. But it is referred to in the RMPS

Objectives. It is not favoured by the writer.

Alternatively there could be: ‘Conserver Living’ and that would translate to: ‘Particular

Purpose Zone – Conserver Living - Reedy Marsh’. The word ‘conserver’ is quite close

but not the same as ‘conservation’ and indeed the zone, which the TPC would potentially

like to see, applied here being the ‘The Landscape Conservation Zone’. However, although I

do not mind the term “Conserver” it is not in common usage. Another similar term is the

word ‘Conservant’ which is archaic. It is not favoured.

If Council has other names or terms, which it prefers and indeed have the reasons for

adoption I would of course be quite willing to consider them.

Surrounding Zoned Land to the Particular Purpose Zone-Larcombes Road Issues

The Particular Purpose Zone-Larcombes Road adjoins the following zones, being the

Environment Management Zone, the Rural Zone, and the Agricultural Zone. I therefore

make some comments in relation to those illogical and arcane LPS zoning decisions, which

are represented in the draft Meander Valley Local Provisions Schedule of the Tasmanian

Planning Scheme.

PA 2

34

Regarding both the Rural Zone and the Agricultural Zone the situation is, that for the titles,

which join the Particular Purpose Zone-Larcombes Road zone, both happen to be Private

Timber Reserves (PTR). It is instructive that one of the Private Timber Reserves has been

mapped into the Reedy Marsh Agricultural Zone to the SE of the PPZ and second PTR is

within the rural zone on the slopes of Stephen’s Hill to the West of the PPZ.

Both PTR properties in question contain native forest, which is of either high or indeed the

highest conservation value, especially in the SE. The successive owners of both properties

remain seemingly with the unflinching aspiration to liquidate the high conservation value

forest. Indeed the PTR in Parkham, has to a large extent succeeded in that goal, diminishing

amenity for the adjoining landowner.

I wish to put it on the record that I remain opposed to the establishment of a Reedy Marsh

Agricultural Zone, as it is currently mapped, which in the draft LPS zone map adjoins the

Particular Purpose Zone-Larcombes Road zone.

The first reason for my opposition is simple, the land in the Reedy Marsh Agricultural zone

has multiple titles supporting listed, threatened and indeed has critically endangered habitat

for listed species.

The Second reason for my opposition to the Reedy Marsh Agricultural Zone is that it

contains very little land with a useful, modern capacity for agriculture, other than the current

minor semi-subsistence style of use, which I argue is not economic nor viable agriculture.

Some are minor income is derived from the land from agriculture in some instances and

although I am sure that is welcome, I do not regard such hobby style activities to be

consistent with the agricultural zone. Forestry does obviously occur in this area and is a mix

of artificial plantations and the liquidation and extraction of native forest.

This land, in the main, has a pH of about 4.5 and in many places a solid impervious layer of

clay under thin Aeolian soils including extensive tracts of acid sulphate soils. It is possibly

okay to have such semi-subsistence agriculture on such partially cleared marginal land,

because that is what it is but I would urge Council to desist from its campaign to zone such

land as Agricultural and to not place such land in the Agriculture Zone. It is not okay to

facilitate the removal of Threatened vegetation by such inappropriate zoning coupled with a

deliberate absence and avoidance of mapped Priority Vegetation in the Zone.

My Third objection to the Reedy Marsh Agricultural zone which already has several private

Timber reserves evident and in the situation where most of them have been recently

harvested and virtually all have been recently replanted to artificial plantations. The PTR

driven forestry, currently in the draft Reedy Marsh Agricultural Zone, is of an industrial

nature, has diminished the amenity of the area, which existed prior to 1997 and which

appears likely to continue regardless of whether it has a social licence or not. The guidelines

suggest that a more appropriate zone would be the Rural zone.

Finally, there is a few titles in the Reedy Marsh Agricultural zone, which adjoin and indeed

belong, in the Reedy Marsh Rural Living Zone. I say that because the owners of the relevant

blocks in question actually live in the Reedy Marsh Rural Living Zone themselves.

When you consider all of the above issues it is perfectly clear that the land currently in the

Reedy Marsh Agricultural Zone should be zoned mainly into the Rural zone with a small

amount (3 blocks) into the Reedy Marsh Rural Living Zone.

Conclusion

PA 2

35

I realise this representation is perhaps more comprehensive than envisaged, however I hope

it assists to make a positive contribution in this dark age of land use planning under the

atmosphere of anti-local government, anti-conservation sentiment.

I look forward to Council’s report.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Ricketts

PA 2

From: David MastersSent: 19 Dec 2018 05:25:25 +0000To: Planning @ Meander Valley CouncilSubject: Representation to the Local Provision ScheduleAttachments: MVC Representation to the Local Provision Schedule.docx

Please see my application for a plot subdivision in my property at 125, Morrison Street, Kimberley 7304 as outlined within the Representation attached.

RegardsDavid Masters(Mob: 0455 211 333)


Representation to the Local Provision Schedule:

My property at 125, Morrison Street, Kimberley is currently zoned as ‘Rural Living’ and I would like to subdivide the existing 4.806 ha(/11.87 ac) in compliance with Rural Zone B (as my immediate neighbour has recently done). The property is outlined on the ‘Plan of the Land Title’ with Registration No. P112311.

The subdivided land would have adequate space for a single dwelling comprising of a building including its own waste water treatment system and having a separate access track via Morrison Street. The use of the land would be compatible with the character of the area and would not compromise any environmental aspects. The building would be positioned well above the flood zones for the River Mersey, Coilers Creek and Hot Water Creek.

The existing properties within the ‘Rural Living Zone’ in Kimberley all contain river flat pastures and the grazing of a variety of livestock is a common practice throughout. Kimberley also boasts its own ‘Hot Water Springs’ with a grassed BBQ area and public conveniences. It also hosts the annual horse-riding endurance event through nearby trails. The locality abounds with wildlife, notably wallabies, padamelons and possums coupled with a variety of raptors/smaller birds with platypus and trout in the waterways.

Parts of Kimberley are already zoned ‘Low Density Residential’ (south side of railway line) and the historic plans indicate that the settlement might have continued growing along these lines as there are similar sized lots to the north of the railway line now zoned “Rural Living’ which could potentially accommodate additional densification.

Kimberley is not isolated and major food shopping can be undertaken in either Sheffield (15 mins away) or Deloraine (20 mins away), smaller items can be purchased either from Railton (6 mins away) where there are also cafes and a PO, or from Ashgroves, Elizabeth Town Bakery or the Service Station which are all on the Bass Hwy (4-5 mins away). Villaret restaurant/gardens is 3 mins away and Christmas Hills Rasberry Farm café/restaurant is 10 mins away.

I note that the MVC does not currently allow the creation of additional lots in Kimberley, however, I can see no good reason as to why this should not be allowed as I feel that additional densification could be supported. Kimberley is well placed and is compatible with many places of similar standing within MVC where sub-divisions are allowed.

David Masters

20/11/18


From: John DentSent: 19 Dec 2018 13:11:45 +1100To: Planning @ Meander Valley CouncilSubject: LPS representation SteersAttachments: img-Z19125659-0001.pdf

Hi Jo, Please find attached a representation in regard to your LPS. Can you please confirm that you have received this. Regards, John DentDirector and Registered Land SurveyorPHONE: +61 3 6331 4099 (Launceston)MOB: 0408 133 656P.O. Box 2843/23 Brisbane Street, Launceston, Tasmania 7250www.pda.com.au The information contained in this e-mail message and any attached files may be the subject of legal professional privilege. Any form of review, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution and/or publication of the information in this e-mail, other than by the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments.



From: Jana RockliffSent: 19 Dec 2018 05:26:26 +0000To: Planning @ Meander Valley CouncilCc: Matthias SchrepferSubject: Representation for Draft Meander Valley LPSAttachments: 300957_L01_Rev1 Representation to Meander Valley LPS.PDF

Dear Sir or Madam, Please see attached letter. Please confirm the receipt of the representation via return email. If you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact me. Thanks. Kind regards

Jana RockliffProject Manager

[email protected]

03 6421 3509PO Box 358, Devonport, TAS 7310100 Best Street Devonport TAS 7310

Follow us

The information transmitted may be confidential, is intended only for the person to which it is addressed, and may not be reviewed, retransmitted, disseminated or relied upon by any other persons. If you received this message in error, please contact the sender and destroy any paper or electronic copies of this message. Views expressed in this email are those of the individual, except where the sender specifically states otherwise. Veris does not guarantee that the communication is free of errors, virus or interference.


https://www.veris.com.au/

https://www.veris.com.au/

https://www.linkedin.com/company/17886407

https://twitter.com/verisaustralia

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCe4G6qef8d29B6ibihmY1oA

https://plus.google.com/107213094481349753794

https://www.facebook.com/VerisAus

Devonport Office Locations 100 Best Street Devonport TAS 7310

T 03 6421 3500 [email protected] veris.com.au

Over 20 offices across Australia veris.com.au/contactus

Veris Australia ABN 53 615 735 727

Wednesday, 19 December 2018

Ref: 300957_L01_Rev0

The General Manager


PO Box 102

Westbury TAS 7303

[email protected]

Dear Sir

RE: Representation to the Daft Meander Valley Local Provision Schedule

Veris was engaged by Matthias Schrepfer, property owner at Travellers Rest, to investigate the impact of the

proposed rezoning of the Traveller Rest area into Landscape Conservation Zone with the Scenic Protection Code

overlay and a Travellers Rest Specific Area Plan as part of the implementation of the new Tasmanian Planning

Scheme.

Although the Landscape Conservation Zone does seem appropriate overall for the area there are significant

changes to the current Planning Scheme which can restrict future developments significantly. Following concerns

were identified:

1. Subdivision

The proposed zone prohibits any subdivision as neither the acceptable solution of 40ha nor the performance criteria

of 20h can be met. Although subdivision to create a new lot is currently prohibited at Travellers Rest a subdivision

which does not create a new lot (boundary adjustment) is permitted via performance criteria.

It is noted that boundary adjustments can be approved under the General Provision 7.3 however the following

requirements must be met:

(a) no additional lots are created;

(b) there is only minor change to the relative size, shape and orientation of the existing lots;

(c) no setback from an existing building will be reduced below the relevant Acceptable Solution setback

requirement;

(d) no frontage is reduced below the relevant Acceptable Solution minimum frontage requirement;

(e) no lot is reduced below the relevant Acceptable Solution minimum lot size unless already below the

minimum lot size; and

(f) no lot boundary that aligns with a zone boundary will be changed.

If any of this requirements cannot be met the boundary adjustment is classed as a subdivision and would be

therefore prohibited under the proposed planning scheme. In particular the requirements in regard to setbacks can

be challenging to meet as the requirements increase significantly as stated further below in this representation.

Furthermore the definition of minor changes (7.3 (b)) are relying entirely on the interpretation of the Council Planner

in charge. It is therefore requested to implement a pathway into the proposed planning scheme to allow for

subdivision which do not create a new lot as it is permitted under the current planning scheme.

PA 2

2. Site coverage

The proposed zone limits the site coverage to 400m2 under 22.4.1 A1. However our client would like to object to

this requirement and requests to implement the current acceptable solution of 30% of the site (12.4.1.1 A1) into

the Travellers Rest Specific Area Plan.

The lot sizes at Travellers Rest range from approx. 9000m2 to 9ha with an average lot size of 2.6ha. Therefore the

proposed zone will reduce the permitted site coverage of every lot at Travellers Rest in comparison to the current

planning scheme requirement. Furthermore our client almost reaches the 400m2 site coverage now and therefore

every future extension will have to address the performance criteria of the proposed zone which might require

expert reports to prove the fulfilment of the requirements which leads to additional effort for future development

approvals.

3. Setbacks

The proposed zone increases the frontage setback requirements from 6 metres to 10 metres and the side and rear

setbacks from 5 metres to 20 metres. Although the existing structures will not be impacted by this changes, new

developments might be restricted as the setbacks in particular to the side and the back increase by 15 metres. The

performance criteria will have to be addressed which might require expert reports to prove the fulfilment of the

requirements which leads to additional effort for future development approvals.

It is also noted that even though Council is stating that they will keep supporting appropriate developments in this

area, it is unknown if this might change in the future due to new personnel with different views and approaches.

Although most developments will be still discretionary under the proposed planning scheme, it is relevant how

many discretionary requirements need to be addressed as it requires in general more effort to argue the fulfilment

of a performance criteria than complying with an acceptable solution.

4. Building height

The proposed zone decreases the permitted building height from 8 metres to 6 metres. Although the existing

structures will not be impacted by this changes, new developments might be restricted. Our client is concerned

that the decreased building height could have a negative impact on future developments.

In light of the above mentioned argument Matthias Schrepfer is requesting Council to amend the proposed

Travellers Rest Specific Area Plan to incorporate the above mentioned requirements in its current form into the

proposed planning scheme amendment.

If you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards

Jana Rockliff

PA 2

From: Rebecca GreenSent: 17 Dec 2018 22:09:37 +0000To: Planning @ Meander Valley Council;Planning @ Meander Valley CouncilCc: David Trimmer ([email protected])Subject: Representation to Draft LPS - 6 Integrity Drive, WestburyAttachments: Submission to MVC 6 Integrity Drive Westbury.pdf

Please see attached letter of representation to the Draft LPS. Kind regards Rebecca GreenSenior Planning Consultant & Accredited Bushfire Hazard AssessorRebecca Green & Associatesm. 0409 284422P.O. Box 2108, Launceston, 7250


General Manager Meander Valley Council PO Box 102 WESTBURY TAS 7303

12 December 2018

Dear Mr Gill,

RE: DRAFT MEANDER VALLEY LOCAL PROVISIONS SCHEDULE SUBMISSION – 6

INTEGRITY DRIVE, WESTBURY

This letter is prepared in support of a proposal for Tasbuilt Manufactured Homes and

Cabins Pty for consideration within the Local Provisions Schedule for Meander Valley

Council inclusion of performance criteria to Clause MEA-S1.7.2 Setback to a

Frontage, MEA-S1.0 Birralee Road Industrial Precinct Specific Area Plan.

Meander Valley Council acknowledges in the MVC LPS Supporting Report dated

September 2018 that “critical to the precinct’s competitive advantage is the low

level of regulatory intervention for new use and development”, yet there are no

corresponding performance criteria in relation to building setback to a frontage.

It is noted that other alterations have been made to the standards to align with the

SPP’s including increasing the allowable height of buildings from 15 metres to 20

metres, yet there is no flexibility for the location of new buildings or additions within

this Specific Area Plan if wanting to vary the setback provisions contained within the

acceptable solution.

Tasbuilt Manufactured Homes and Cabins Pty manufacture pre-built homes,

operating from the premises at 6 Integrity Drive, Westbury. The acceptable solution

for frontage setback would be 8m to a primary frontage with Integrity Drive. A draft

proposal for shed extensions and offices at the subject site (see attached concept)

would be prohibited under the proposed Specific Area Plan provisions. Due to the

nature of the manufacturing business and expansion requirements, the business

requires to maximise the site as much as possible and this would mean building up

to within 3.0m of the primary frontage. At this point in time and that proposed in

the LPS, it seems that this option could not be even entertained as there is no

corresponding performance criteria. There is no opportunity therefore to consider

existing structures and setbacks in the street, landscaping, topography, scale or bulk

PA 2

form and the like. An existing display home on the subject site is located presently at

2.3m from the primary frontage at the closest point.

It is proposed that Council consider inclusion of a corresponding performance

criteria to Clause MEA-S1.7.2 Setback to a Frontage, of MEA-S1.0 Birralee Road

Industrial Precinct Specific Area Plan. This would allow each future individual

application to be considered on its own planning merit, whilst allowing existing and

future businesses to develop, whilst retaining Council’s aim for the area of having

low regulatory intervention.

The General Industrial Zone of the State Planning Provisions includes a performance

criteria against all provisions, and it is proposed that the SAP for this area do the

same.

It is recommended that the following performance criteria or similar is inserted

against Clause MEA-S1.7.2 Setback to a Frontage, of MEA-S1.0 Birralee Road

Industrial Precinct Specific Area Plan:

“P1 - If a building is setback from a road, landscaping treatment must be provided

along the frontage of the site, having regard to:

(a) the width of the setback;

(b) the width of the frontage;

(c) the topography of the site;

(d) existing vegetation on the site;

(e) the location, type and growth of the proposed vegetation; and

(f) any relevant local area objectives contained within the relevant Local Provisions

Schedule.”

The inclusion of a performance criteria allows flexibility in design whilst not restricting development or restraining the growth and expansion of existing business operations. The current and proposed future provisions restricts growth of the current business operating from the site at 6 Integrity Drive, and alternative locations outside the Meander Valley Council may have to be considered if the business cannot be allowed to consider future development and expansion. We look forward to your consideration of this request and hope that the availability of a truly performance-based planning scheme will allow Tasbuilt Manufactured Homes and Cabins Pty the opportunity to continue to operate in this location.

PA 2

Kind Regards,

Rebecca Green

Senior Planning Consultant m – 0409 284422 e – [email protected]

PA 2

From: Ryan RobinsonSent: 18 Dec 2018 04:35:02 +0000To: Planning @ Meander Valley CouncilCc: John AyersSubject: Attn: Martin Gill General Manager - Representation to Draft LPSAttachments: Representation to MVC Draft LPS - Westbury Road SPA.pdf

Dear Mr Gill, Please find attached with this email a representation made on behalf of Kilpatrick’s Joinery Pty Ltd, in support of the Westbury Road Specific Area Plan as proposed in the Draft Local Provisions Schedule. Kind regards,Ryan RobinsonGraduate Planner

GHDProudly employee ownedT: +61 3 6332 5519 | V: 325519 | E: [email protected] Paterson Street Launceston TAS 7250 Australia | www.ghd.com WATER | ENERGY & RESOURCES | ENVIRONMENT | PROPERTY & BUILDINGS | TRANSPORTATION

Please consider our environment before printing this email _____________________CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email, including any attachments, is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender immediately, and please delete it; you should not copy it or use it for any purpose or disclose its contents to any other person. GHD and its affiliates reserve the right to monitor and modify all email communications through their networks._____________________


http://www.ghd.com/

http://www.ghd.com/global/markets/water/

http://www.ghd.com/global/sectors/energy--resources/

http://www.ghd.com/global/markets/environment/

http://www.ghd.com/global/markets/property--buildings/

http://www.ghd.com/global/markets/transportation/

18 December 2018

Martin Gill

General Manager


PO Box 102

Westbury TAS 7303

Our ref: 3218446-36304 Your ref:

Dear Sir

Submission LPS - Meander Valley Council Representation to Westbury Road Specific Area Plan On behalf of our client Kilpatrick’s Joinery Pty Ltd we wish to lodge a representation in support of the

following inclusions as part of the proposed Westbury Road Specific Area Plan, of the Draft Meander

Valley Local Provisions Schedule.

MEA-S19.6.2 Sensitive Uses – General Business Zone Clause 15.3 A1(a) and (b)- protect the

established use of the land for manufacturing activities from potential conflict with sensitive uses.

MEA Site Specific Qualifications - MEA-15.2 – 367 Westbury Road Prospect Vale 32077/2 and

32077/3 - Additional Permitted Use class for the site – Manufacturing and Processing with the

qualification ‘If for a joinery factory.”

Kilpatrick’s Joinery is located at 365-367 Westbury Road Prospect Vale and is currently within the

General Business Zone. The joinery business has been active since its establishment in the 1950s and

was purchased by the Kilpatrick’s in 1968.

Clause 15.3 A1, provides for the separation of sensitive uses from the subject site at CT 32077/2 and

32077/3 requiring a minimum setback of 40m, or under the Performance Criteria requires that a sensitive

use is sited so as not to be adversely affected by the emissions from adjoining industrial activities, or that

the sensitive use includes measures to mitigate the adverse impacts of adjoining industrial activities.

Sincerely

GHD

John Ayers Technical Director Planning

+61 3 6332 5508

PA 2

pa 2 - meander.tas.gov.au · pa 2. from: karen murray sent: 19 dec 2018 23:02:34 +1100 to: planning...

Documents