Land Use Planning & Approvals (Stony Rise Development Approval) bill (no 52) 2024

Wednesday 27 November 2024

[7.20 p.m.]

Ms ARMITAGE (Launceston) - Mr President, I thank the Leader for bringing this bill to this place, and for the briefings that we had, which I found were very beneficial, particularly from the different groups this morning. It always helps.

One thing that I have discovered about the LUPAA and planning over these last couple of days is that our Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 seriously needs revision.

I believe that is something that the government should be looking at as a priority.

Ms Forrest - I thought they promised you that in 2014.

Ms ARMITAGE - Possibly. It is maybe 10 years later.

Ms Forrest - I know. It does.

Ms ARMITAGE - It seriously does.

One thing that I remember from my time on local council, if we are talking about developments, I can recall a resident who had a home in one of our little streets in Launceston who wanted to put a haberdashery shop in a little old house that she had rented. It was fairly falling down. Because it was haberdashery, and did not sell milk or bread, she could not have it. It is a bit like this - if she sold milk or bread, then she could have had it in the middle of the residential area.

It is just the most nonsense thing to do with the planning scheme. You can put something in a residential area if it is useful and people can go and buy products like milk and bread and other things. But hey, put a haberdashery store and you cannot, unless you do it - I see it a bit - like the development before us now. You can put a big box or a Dan Murphy's or a Bunnings on that site that has been sitting empty for 10 years. But if you want to put a development like a supermarket and other shops that people might like and it does not fit the planning scheme.

I do not blame the TPC because I think the TPC is just going along with the guidelines that are there before it. I think that is the really difficult thing. It is following the guidelines. It is not that it is trying to be obstructionist or trying to stop development. It is just following the guidelines, rightly or wrongly. It is a bit like my poor lady when I was on council, wanting to put a little shop in but it did not sell the products like milk and bread that would have fit the planning scheme, or it was not a doctor's surgery or a dentist's surgery.

The planning scheme is well out of date. It is causing all these problems, and I would hope that the government would see that and do something fairly quickly about it. I really appreciated the member for Mersey's contribution. I think that is the thing. The member for Mersey is on the spot, understanding the people in his electorate. It is really good to hear. I particularly like the fact that you are not just speaking on it, but you are looking to put an amendment in to solve some of the problems that are existing. The fact that both the government and the developer are happy to support those amendments is really working together.

I want to go through a few brief comments. A lot of it has been covered. Also, the member for Murchison - there are always two sides to every story. There are always both sides; people who are appealing and people who are not. Having come from a local government background, I understand that very well. It does not matter which side you are on, you feel that your side is right and everyone should be agreeing. It is not always an easy course to make a decision and take a side.

As we understand, the site has been vacant for 10 years. Traffic needs to be addressed. The community is on board. The briefings this morning came unanimously approved by the Devonport City Council with overwhelming community support. The other comments - retail is what they do, is what this group does. They need, was it 8000 to 10,000 people for a supermarket? There are 40,000 people with only two supermarkets. We were told, and I am assuming this is correct, that it is a battle because of the traffic to get into those sites. I do not go to Devonport a lot. It is not somewhere that I frequent. The amount of people in that area - I think the mayor said that it is a catchment of 70,000 people- only have two supermarkets.

I thought the five Cs were interesting: catchment, community, competition, convenience and car parking. Centre for community, jobs and youth training, convenience, having to battle into the CBD to do your shopping, and the fact that the development does create competition.

I mentioned to Mr Spanton this morning that I felt that he was being adversarial and that his attitude was not good. I pointed out to him that I was going to give him a slap here on the lectern because I think that the attitude that he presented was not conducive to trying to get people on his side. I must admit he took it quite well. I did ask him to come outside the room because I wanted to speak to him.

I thought it was really important that he appreciated that. If you are trying to convince people of something that you consider is worthwhile, attacking them and being adversarial is not the way to go about it. I agree with the member for Murchison about the advertisement. If he wanted us to see that, all he needed to do was send it to us. He did not need to put it in the local papers. He could have just emailed it to us as he did the day before. I think that was appropriate.

We are saying that there was a precedent, Parliament Square. As I pointed out to him, I do not believe there was a precedent because Parliament Square - I was here at the time of Parliament Square and I will fully admit that I voted against the Parliament Square.

Ms O'Connor - Hear. hear. So did we.

Ms ARMITAGE - Well, I did. The reason I did was because it was not a TPC decision. It was purely taking the appeal process out. At the time, from memory, there was a loophole in the Heritage Act which allowed appeals. The government decided they had had enough of appeals and they wanted to proceed. Veering very slightly from that -

Mr PRESIDENT - And not reflecting on a previous vote of the Council.

Ms Rattray - Her own vote.

Ms ARMITAGE - My own vote, yes. Not anyone else's. I still could not believe that the government and the opposition, and I think it might have been that the other party at the time - got an idea, Mr President, that you were in the chair at that time, because I remember you telling me I was going to have a tent on Parliament lawns because I voted against the development.

Mr PRESIDENT - I cannot remember that.

Ms ARMITAGE - I am pretty sure that I was told that I would not be getting an office because I did vote against it. The thing was, it was purely against the process, against the appeal. It was not the same thing. The TPC was not involved. I do not see that a precedent had already been set. I did point that out to Mr Spanton today as well.

I understand the community wants this. I understand that the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act is well out of date. Is this a good move? It is not a good move? At the end of the day, we have to make decisions that we think are in the best interests of our community, and having listened to the member for Mersey, I actually believe this is. Is it in the best interests of the developer? Perhaps it is, but I am looking at the community. Good access to the centre, the intersection on Stony Rise Road, we are told, is at capacity. They have said they will not open this shopping centre until that is fixed, which is really good to hear. Existing approval for a Bunnings without upgrading the intersection - how interesting is that? Everyone knows how many people shop at Bunnings. We have two Bunnings in Launceston. If I go to either of them, it does not matter whether it is Saturday or Sunday -

Member - The carpark is full.

Ms ARMITAGE - The carpark is full. The traffic, the road is lined up. I think that shows to me the flaws in the current planning scheme. You can have an approval for a big box, for a Bunnings, without upgrading the intersection, but something that the community really wants, such as a shopping centre, which will perhaps have the same amount of traffic, is refused. I think that is not the problem with the TPC. That is a problem of the current act. The council and State Growth are working on a solution. I am really pleased to see that the member for Mersey has an amendment coming up. I will certainly be prepared to support that.

It was good to hear this morning also that the business community is behind the development and they also consider that there needs to be an overhaul of LUPAA. Mayor Jarman mentioned the catchment of 70,000 people looking to grow, and that they need to be open to developers wanting to come to the area. They need to look open for business. They cannot look like, 'We say no to everything, do not come to Devonport'. I think that is really important too. Whether it be Devonport, Launceston or Hobart, does not matter where it is, you do need to look open to business. Having said that, I do not think that this is a course we should be following for everything. In this particular case, having listened to the evidence and also the hearings this morning, I feel quite comfortable supporting the legislation before us.

Traffic concerns in the area are growing causes. We need to deal with increased traffic. There is a lot of traffic where current supermarkets are. I would assume if there are only two supermarkets in the area, they would have a considerable amount of traffic. I would assume that having more supermarkets in another area can only ease the congestion right across the board.

The other thing that was mentioned by the mayor, Alison Jarman, was that there was no room currently for RVs or caravan parking. She felt they were almost blacklisted by the grey nomads. We know how much money they bring into a community, particularly when they come over, to be able to travel around. You want them to stay, even for two or three nights. You want them in your area; you want tourists of all types, but grey nomads are great. They have time, they spend money. It is important to have somewhere that they can park. I was pleased to hear this morning that there would be parking for RVs in the new carpark.

Yes, it will increase the traffic but there are already traffic concerns, and they need to be mitigated. We heard this morning that they will not open the supermarket or the shops, whatever they have there. I believe that they have lost a couple of leaseholders. I am sure if they get it, if they get approval today, if this passes - and obviously it is up to the members here - they will soon pick up leaseholders again. It was disappointing to see that they say they have lost some of the 'mum and dad' leaseholders, some of the smaller ones. I guess that is hard for people that have got limited income to not know what is going to happen, and they need to take what becomes available. It was part of the retail study at council that they need at least one more supermarket.

The other issue that was mentioned was the lack of public transport. It was good to hear from mayor Jarman this morning that Kinetic have told them they have no problem in putting a bus system up there, if this were approved - but obviously any bus system wants passengers. If Kinetic is willing - and I have to say that from the dealings I have had with Kinetic in my area of the state, it has been fantastic. It has been very willing to try to come forward and assist where needed. Need to be open to business. I am just going through the briefing from this morning and, as mayor Jarman said, they could build a big box development there now.

I am pleased to see also that the member for Mersey read in the letter, or the details, from Mark Thomas. It is always good to have both sides. I am not going to spend time reading in things that have been read in already. I believe it is important that it is already on the public record. Of course, there is always more than one side to any issue. I can appreciate the people who are not in favour, and I am sure there is a considerable amount of people who are not in favour, whether it is because of traffic or competition. For whatever reason, there will always be people who are not in favour.

From my perspective, I feel that many of the issues have been dealt with. The traffic seems to be a major issue. The communities seem to be on board. The local council has come on board. Yes, this could be seen as a precedent, but I still see that the main problem with this development not having been passed by the TPC is the fact that the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 is out of date. I think that was the main reason that it was not approved. I do not blame the TPC. I believe it has done the best it could with what it had before it. I see that the legislation before us, while many will feel that it is inappropriate to do it this way, and we all have different opinions - I can accept that for the people of Devonport. I really appreciate hearing from the member for Mersey, who is actually there on the ground in that area, listening to those people.

Hearing that, and the council as well, and knowing that those people desperately want this development, and hearing from other members about developments that this group - and as I said, I thought some of it was inappropriate, the way they went about it. At the end of the day, if you are passionate about something, sometimes you do not stop to think that maybe what you are saying has not been delivered in the very best way. I tried to point out to him maybe it is not the way to do it next time.

From the perspective of the community of Devonport, of the council, and showing that they are open for business; they do want business there, with the amendment from the member for Mersey - and I think that makes a big difference that the traffic issues will be addressed. The fact that a Bunnings store could be on that site now, with as much traffic as anything that this other development will cause, I am prepared to support the development before us, and the amendment from the member for Mersey.