The draft amendment is approved under section 40Q of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993.

The draft amendment proposes to make some changes to the South Brighton Specific Area Plan (SAP), which are detailed below:

• amend Figure BRI-S11.2 The South Brighton Specific Area Plan Development Framework, and
• in provision BRI-S11.8.2 P1.2, replace the words of 'Council's adopted Key Infrastructure Investments and Defined Infrastructure Charges policy that is relevant to the land' with 'Council's adopted Infrastructure Contributions Policy that is relevant to the land.' to reflect Brighton Council's amended policy.

The Infrastructure Contributions Policy replaces Council's Key Infrastructure Investments and Charges Policy. Copies of both policies were provided by the planning authority along with a table that described the differences between them. The table below provided by the planning authority in the supporting report outlines the key differences between the superseded policy and amended policy.

Key Infrastructure Investments and Charges Policy (superseded policy)

Infrastructure Contribution Policy (amended policy)

6.4 - The removal of the ability for TasWater to impose headworks charges has resulted in situation where the outlay costs of critical infrastructure has prohibited strategic development. Effectively TasWater has no means to recoup its costs and its investment in new capacity building infrastructure has been limited.

6.5 - The result of this has meant that in the case of residential rezonings and subdivisions, the first to develop must incur major coasts that then benefit all subsequent developers within that area.

6.6 - Council can fill this void by acting as an intermediary and provide an investment in the upfront contribution to these infrastructure costs.

6.7 - There may be cases where strategic infrastructure other than sewerage or water, such as roads, bridges, stormwater and the like, may be appropriate for such a strategic investment by Council

6.4 - The situation often arises where the first to undertake development must incur major costs for critical infrastructure that then benefit all subsequent developers within that area. This is called the "first mover" problem and it can be a significant barrier to achieving strategic development outcomes.

6.5 - The issue is more prevalent for infill development projects where land has recently been "upzoned" and there are multiple property owners. This can also result in development occurring in an ad-hoc manner that creates undesirable and inefficient outcomes.

6.6 - Council can fill this void by acting as an intermediary and provide an investment in the upfront contribution to these infrastructure costs, or collect contributions to provide a coordinated approach to infrastructure delivery.

6.7 - This policy will generally be applied to infrastructure that is the responsibility of Council, such as roads, bridges, stormwater, open space and the like. There may be occasions where Council act as an intermediary to collect funds for other infrastructure authorities such as TasWater, TasNetworks, etc.

The updates to the background section in the amended policy provide developers with a clearer understanding of its rationale.

The amended policy explicitly identifies infill development and fragmented land ownership as key challenges, offering greater clarity on the factors affecting infrastructure provision.

Additionally, it clarifies Council's role, emphasizing that its primary responsibility is for Council-managed infrastructure. However, in some cases, Council may act on behalf of other infrastructure authorities, such as TasWater and TasNetworks. This reference does not impose new obligations but simply clarifies that Council may serve as a collector of contributions for these entities, rather than directly funding their infrastructure.

The amended policy (6.4-6.5) does not introduce a new principle but rather formally names the existing issue as the "first mover" problem to enhance understanding. This terminology provides a clearer and more structured explanation without altering the original intent.

It is important to note that the background section does not function as a set of policy principles or provisions that Council officers are responsible for implementing.

On this basis, the changes to the background section are minor refinements that do not expand the scope of the amended policy.

• 6.19 - The infrastructure investments of Council may include but are not limited to the following general areas:

(a) water;

(b) sewerage;

(c) roads and other transport;

(d) public open space infrastructure;

(e) stormwater drainage;

(f) carparking.

• 6.19 - The infrastructure investments of Council may include but are not limited to the following general areas:

(a) roads and other transport;

(b) public open space and recreation infrastructure;

(c) stormwater drainage;

(d) carparking; or

(e) social infrastructure (e.g. buildings for youth hubs, social services, etc.)

The removal of water and sewerage form the list indicates that Council does not provide those services.

Addition of social infrastructure While this appears to be a new category, it does not fundamentally change Council's role. Many councils already invest in community infrastructure (e.g., community centres, public facilities). The inclusion of social infrastructure clarifies that Council may also support community-based infrastructure when it aligns with strategic development objectives. It does not introduce new financial burdens but rather provides a clearer scope for the types of infrastructure that align with Council's strategic priorities.

The mention of recreation infrastructure does not expand Council's role but rather clarifies what public open space investment may include.

Given that section 6.19 states that infrastructure investments "may include but are not limited to" the listed areas, these changes are minor refinements rather than an expansion of Council's role and do not introduce a broader scope to the policy.

(c) approve the Key Infrastructure Investment Policy

The subject site is the area subject to the South Brighton SAP, comprising 69 Brighton Road, 33 Elderslie Road, 25 and 27 William Street, 1-11 and 13 Dylan Street and 1-13 Melinda Court, and parts of 12, 14 and 15-17 Dylan Street (figure 1).

The wider area is surrounded by land in the General Residential and Light Industrial zones to the north, the Rural Living, Utilities and Agriculture zones to the east, the Rural and Light Industrial zones to the south, and the Rural Living and Agriculture zones to the west.

The site is in mostly in the General Residential Zone with some smaller parts in the Environmental Management and Local Business zones. Parts of the site are subject to the Natural Assets Code - priority vegetation area overlay, Landslip Hazard Code and the Bushfire-Prone Areas Code. It is sparsely vegetated and has a gentle grade sloping towards the south.

Figure 1: South Brighton Specific Area Plan overlay GRZ in orange, LBZ area at north and EMZ area west of pin.

The draft amendment was referred to TasWater under section 56S of the Water and Sewerage Industry Act 2008. In response TasWater made a representation stating no objection to the draft amendment and that it did not wish to attend any hearing.

Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania put in a representation to alert the planning authority of requirement to make contact prior to any development on the site as the site contains several Aboriginal heritage sites and a previous Aboriginal heritage assessment had been undertaken on the site.

A representation from a planning consultant for a property owner within the SAP area was received which raised the following issues:

• the SAP and the SAP figures contain fundamental flaws, as the draft amendment imposes a static plan of subdivision, alters an already approved plan, and introduces an unenforceable development standard around infrastructure contributions
• there is a lack of supporting information on the rationale for the draft amendment.

Planning authority's response to the representations

The planning authority considered the representations and recommended no modification to the draft amendment.

The hearing was held at the Commission's office on Level 3, 144 Macquarie Street, Hobart on 11 August 2025.

Planning authority: Jo Blackwell, Manager Planning, Brighton Council

Representors: Evan Boardman, Director, E3 Planning for Ms Ramilya Khayrutdinova

Other: Anita Bourn, Principal Land Use Planner - Strategic Growth Governance, TasNetworks

1. Under section 40M of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (the Act), the Commission is required to consider the draft amendment to the Local Provisions Schedule (LPS) and the representations, statements and recommendations contained in the planning authority's section 40K report and any information obtained at a hearing.
2. A hearing was convened to assist the Commission consider the issues in the representations.
3. The Commission must also consider whether the draft amendment meets the LPS criteria as set out under section 34(2) of the Act:

(a) contains all the provisions that the SPPs specify must be contained in an LPS; and

(b) is in accordance with section 32; and

(c) furthers the objectives set out in Schedule 1; and

(d) is consistent with each State policy; and

(da) satisfies the relevant criteria in relation to the TPPs; and

(e) as far as practicable, is consistent with the regional land use strategy, if any, for the regional area in which is situated the land to which the relevant planning instrument relates; and

(f) has regard to the strategic plan, prepared under section 66 of the Local Government Act 1993, that applies in relation to the land to which the relevant planning instrument relates; and

(g) as far as practicable, is consistent with and co-ordinated with any LPSs that apply to municipal areas that are adjacent to the municipal area to which the relevant planning instrument relates; and

(h) has regard to the safety requirements set out in the standards prescribed under the Gas Safety Act 2019.

1. The intent of the South Brighton SAP is to provide for sufficient public infrastructure, housing diversity, improved residential amenity, road and pedestrian connectivity and public and private landscaping.
2. To achieve this, the SAP incorporates precincts and associated definitions. The SAP applies in substitution or addition to the underlying zone and code provisions and contains Development Standards relating to future urban development, vehicular access, frontage infrastructure, landscaping, public open space and development and works in the proposed precincts and subdivision.
3. In the 40K report the planning authority submitted that the LPS criteria, which incorporates section 32(4) requirement for a specific area plan, had been addressed when the South Brighton SAP was originally approved by the Commission in 2024.
4. The planning authority submitted that the changes proposed as part of this draft amendment were to correct a previous inconsistency with the South Brighton Development Framework, a change of name to the contributions policy and minor changes within the policy. It stated '...the policy's core elements including purpose, scope, objectives, and payment processes remain unchanged, ensuring consistency in the Council's infrastructure investment approach'.
5. At the hearing, Mr Boardman for Ms Ramilya Khayrutdinova submitted that it was unclear what the amendment was for and the way the planning authority exhibited the amendment did not encourage public involvement in the planning process.
6. At the hearing, Mr Van for the planning authority submitted that the newspaper advertisement provided information on how documentation on the draft amendment could be viewed, including links to Council's website and information on how the public could be involved and access further information.
7. Mr Boardman submitted that the inclusion of the Development Framework Plan in the SAP would result in a situation where future planning scheme amendments would be inevitable as it would restrict development which was not strictly in accordance with the plan. Mr Boardman also stated that policy being referenced to in a clause in the planning scheme was problematic and would cause future issues unless it were included as an incorporated document.
8. At the hearing, the planning authority confirmed the revised Development Framework Plan figure in the SAP was submitted with the original amendment's RZ 2022-05 section 40K report (in 2024) as a revised version to reflect the Council's modifications in its section 40K report. Mr Van stated this revised version was unfortunately inadvertently not updated in the Commission's final approval. Therefore, this draft amendment is simply to correct an error where a previous version had not been updated.
9. In response to Mr Boardman's concerns about restrictions in development because of the Framework, Ms Blackwell for the planning authority submitted that the Performance Criteria would allow for developments to be considered through a discretionary pathway which did not strictly meet the Development Framework Plan.

1. The draft amendment does not change the operation of the SAP as detailed above. It reflects the renaming of the Council's policy, and minor changes within the policy which do not alter the operation or policy intent of the SAP.
2. In addition, the draft amendment replaces Figure BRI-S11.2 which the planning authority advised was incorrect as it was not consistent with the modified figure by the planning authority in response to representations in the section 40K report for previous draft amendment RZ 2022-05.
3. The Commission accepts the modified figure BRI-S11.2, and understands this version was omitted in error in the preceding draft amendment decision.

1. The planning authority in its supporting report dated 1 April 2025 submitted that the draft amendment would further the Schedule 1 Objectives by providing for the fair, orderly and sustainable development of the area, improve strategic outcomes and facilitate economic development.

1. The Commission accepts the submission provided by the planning authority and finds that the purpose of the draft amendment is consistent with fair, orderly and sustainable use and development, and that it seeks to further the Schedule 1 Objectives of the Act.

1. In the supporting report dated 1 April 2025 the planning authority submitted that the draft amendment would have no direct impact on water quality and any impact on water quality will be regulated through future development applications.

1. In the supporting report dated 1 April 2025 the planning authority submitted the draft amendment would not trigger consideration under the National Environment Protection Measures (NEPMs).

1. The Commission finds that the State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997 would be adequately addressed through future development applications.
2. The Commission finds the draft amendment is not inconsistent with any of the NEPMs and that no other State Policies are relevant to the draft amendment.

1. The relevant regional land use strategy is the Southern Tasmania Regional Land Use Strategy 2010-2035 (regional strategy).
2. In the supporting report dated 1 April 2025 the planning authority submitted that the draft amendment was consistent with SRD 2.1, 2.6 and 2.9 as it provided a strong framework for developers and Council to work together.
3. The planning authority submitted that the proposal was consistent with P1 2.2 and LUTI 1.6 as the draft amendment makes provision for local infrastructure requirements.

1. The Commission finds that the draft amendment is, as far as is practicable, consistent with the regional strategy.

1. The Commission is satisfied that the draft amendment meets the LPS criteria and gives its approval.

1. Remove the existing layout in Figure BRI-S11.2 The South Brighton Specific Area Plan Development Framework of the BRI-S11.0 South Brighton Specific Area Plan and replace with the following layout:

1. Amend clauses BRI-S11.8.2 P1.2 of the BRI-S11.0 South Brighton Specific Area Plan as follows:

This clause is in addition to General Residential Zone - clause 8.6 Development Standards for Subdivision.

(a) subdivision design provides for Council infrastructure that will enable further land development in accordance with the Development Framework and purpose of the Specific Area Plan; and

(b) developer contributions are made towards the cost and provision of infrastructure in accordance with the relevant Policy adopted by the Council.

The provision, and upgrading of Council infrastructure, must be provided having regard to:

(a) the demand the subdivision places on Council infrastructure;

(b) the need for connecting Council infrastructure to common boundaries with adjoining land to facilitate future subdivision potential;

(c) any existing Council infrastructure;

(d) any upgrades to existing Council infrastructure that may be required;

(e) topography and other site conditions; and

(f) any advice from a State authority, regulated entity or a Council.

Where Council infrastructure has been provided by Council, an infrastructure contribution must be paid, having regard to Council's adopted Infrastructure Contributions Policy that is relevant to the land.