The draft amendment was lodged under section 37 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (the Act) by the applicant, ERA Planning and Environment, for a site-specific qualification (SSQ) to the land at 100 Cadbury Road, Claremont, currently developed with the Cadbury chocolate factory. The SSQ was proposed to apply to:

• Light Industrial Zone to allow General Retail and Hire, and Tourist Operation as discretionary uses with the qualification of 'where providing for car parking as part of a visitor experience associated with the Cadbury chocolate factory', and
• General Industrial Zone to allow Community Meeting and Entertainment, General Retail and Hire, and Tourist Operation as discretionary uses with the qualification of 'where part of a visitor experience associated with the Cadbury chocolate factory'.

The applicant's planning submission dated 4 November 2024 (planning submission) stated (p. 2) that the SSQ was proposed to facilitate the operation of the Cadbury Visitor Experience (visitor experience), which includes a:

• Time tunnel - where a century of chocolate heritage and accomplishments in Tasmania come to life.
• Arboretum of live cocoa trees where cacao pods can be observed at different growth stages while learning about the cultivation and harvesting process.
• The taste kitchen - a small-scale chocolate production line used to develop and test new flavours and seasonal offerings in partnership with Tasmanian growers.
• Factory control room - granting exclusive access to the main factory.
• Chocolate Lab - where visitors can participate in real time taste testing and quality control.
• Building your own bar experience - where visitors can create their own unique chocolate bar to take home with them.
• Mass ingredient barn - where visitors can discover the various ingredients used in chocolate production including Tasmanian milk and its transformation into 'crumb', which is the base milk and sugar product used to create dairy milk chocolate.
• Chocolate lounge - a unique culinary experience for visitors with chocolate inspired dishes intertwined with other Tasmanian ingredients.
• Chocolate emporium - a place where visitors can purchase a wide and vast variety of delicious, exclusively made chocolates as well as the Cadbury favourites.
• Playground nestled in the scenic parkland along with a café providing a more casual eating experience.

The applicant further stated that the following use classes would apply to the visitor experience:

• Community Meeting and Entertainment
• Food Services
• General Retail and Hire
• Resource Processing, and
• Tourist Operation.

Community Meeting and Entertainment, General Retail and Hire, and Tourist Operation are prohibited use classes in the General Industrial Zone. Tourist Operation is a prohibited use in the Light Industrial Zone. Therefore, these uses were proposed to be introduced as permissible uses through the SSQs.

The planning authority considered that the General Industrial Zone and Light Industrial Zone of the State Planning Provisions (SPPs) do not contain adequate standards for assessing applications for the intended uses and associated development. As such, the planning authority modified the applicant's proposed draft amendment (relying on SSQ's) by introducing a new specific area plan (SAP) that:

• inserts Tourist Operation as a Discretionary use
• introduces new use standards, and
• introduces new development standards for heritage.

The planning authority's modified amendment did not provide for the consideration of the Community Meeting and Entertainment or General Retail and Hire use classes in the SAP as requested by the applicant.

The applicant was consulted prior to the planning authority certifying the draft amendment. In an email dated 19 December 2024, the applicant advised the planning authority that it did not support the inclusion of a SAP and requested that Community Meeting and Entertainment, and General Retail and Hire use classes be included in the certified draft amendment.

The planning authority proceeded to modify the proposal by introducing a SAP prior to certifying the draft amendment, which is the subject of this decision.

The draft amendment proposes to insert a new SAP, being the Cadbury Visitor Experience SAP at 100 Cadbury Road, Claremont. The SAP:

• inserts Tourist Operation as a Discretionary use, with the qualification:

(a) Tourist Operation associated with the Cadbury Chocolate Factory in the General Industrial Zone; and

(b) Car Parking for the Tourist Operation associated with the Cadbury Chocolate Factory in the Light Industrial Zone.

• introduces new use standards, and
• introduces new development standards for heritage.

The 'Cadbury Factory' at 100 Cadbury Road, Claremont (the site) contains three areas of land under one title, being folio of the Register 139355/2. The site has an area of 17.21ha. The eastern half of the site contains a large factory with various buildings and infrastructure. The western half of the site contains vegetation, walking tracks and the former Cadbury branch line rail formation. Car parking is located in the northern section of the site.

The site is serviced by reticulated water and sewerage. A gas distribution pipe is also located within the site.

The site has three vehicle access points along Cadbury Road and Bournville Crescent. The site contains walking and bike tracks, which are informally accessible to the public.

The site is split zoned in the General Industrial, Light Industrial, Environmental Management, and Open Space zones. The factory is in the General Industrial Zone, while the factory car park is in the Light Industrial Zone. The foreshore area is in the Environmental Management Zone and land to the west is in the Open Space Zone, which contains vegetation and walking tracks.

The following codes and associated overlays apply to future use and development at the site:

• Parking and Sustainable Transport Code
• Road and Railway Assets Code
• Local Historic Heritage Code*
• Natural Assets Code
• Attenuation Code
• Coastal Erosion Hazard Code
• Coastal Inundation Hazard Code
• Potentially Contaminated Land Code, and
• Landslip Hazard Code.

*The site is a local heritage listed place under the Glenorchy Local Provisions Schedule (LPS) known as GLE-C6.1.24 Cadbury Industrial Estate - Factory.

Twenty-two representations were received. Of these:

• 19 representations were in full support or raised no objection
• 2 representations opposed the draft amendment, and
• 1 representation from the applicant raised concerns about the modifications made to the draft amendment prior to certifying.

• access to parklands by the public
• loss of trees and heritage values, such as the historic gates and railway tracks
• impact on bird species
• loss of residential amenity and privacy
• traffic and parking impacts and congestion
• noise impacts
• the draft amendment allows development which is unsuitable for the area
• the SAP is unnecessary
• the draft amendment has limited potential to impact residential amenity
• exclusion of the Community Meeting and Entertainment, and General Retail and Hire use classes creates uncertainty in whether the uses could operate at the site
• the heritage and visual landscape provisions are unnecessarily complex for the site, such as the requirement for a Conservation Management Plan (CMP) and a Visual Impact Assessment (VIA), and
• the heritage provisions in the SAP do not satisfy section 32(4) of the Act.

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 TasWater did not wish to attend any hearing.

Planning authority's response to the representations

The planning authority considered the representations and resolved that:

• minor modifications to the SAP be made in response to the representations, and
• the modifications satisfy section 34 of the Act.

The hearing was held at the Commission's office on Level 3, 144 Macquarie Street, Hobart on the 4 June 2025.

Planning authority: Darshini Bangaru Hyde, Strategic Planner

Applicant: Clare Hester, ERA Planning and Environment

1. Under section 40M of the Act, the Commission is required to consider the draft amendment to the 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 in considering the issues in the representations and the section 40K report.
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. Under section 32(4) of the Act, an LPS may contain a local over riding provision only (including a SAP) if:

(a) a use or development to which the provision relates is of significant social, economic or environmental benefit to the State, a region or a municipal area; or

(b) the area of land has particular environmental, economic, social or spatial qualities that require provisions, that are unique to the area of land, to apply to the land in substitution for, or in addition to, or modification of, the provisions of the SPPs.

1. In the applicant's planning submission, it considered that the proposed uses satisfied section 32(4)(a) and (b) of the Act for the following reasons:
   • the Cadbury Visitor Experience project represents a $150 million investment with significant employment opportunities
   • the Cadbury Visitor Experience would attract over 500,000 visitors annually and contribute a further $120 million in visitor spending
   • the site has unique environmental, social and spatial qualities, as it is the only major chocolate making facility in Tasmania with social and industrial heritage values
   • the heritage values date from 1922 when the factory was opened, and
   • the factory held tours from 1958 to 2016, which created a unique visitor experience. It was noted that the tours ceased due to food and workplace safety requirements.
2. It is noted that the planning submission was prepared for the applicant's proposal of SSQs, not the SAP as modified by the planning authority. Nevertheless, the criteria for SSQs and a SAP are the same under section 32(4) of the Act.
3. In its report supporting the draft amendment dated 28 January 2025 (supporting report), the planning authority stated that the draft amendment, minus the Community Meeting and Entertainment, and General Retail and Hire use classes (as modified), satisfies section 32(4)(a) for the same reasons as the applicant.
4. The planning authority considered that the draft amendment satisfies section 32(4)(b) of the Act due to the site's spatial qualities that require unique provisions beyond the SPPs. These qualities include proximity to residential zones, heritage significance and prominent location, as detailed below.
5. The site is adjacent to an established residential suburb in the General Residential Zone. It considered that this is unusual, as usually the General Industrial Zone is separated from the General Residential Zone so industrial uses are not required to implement mitigation measures to reduce negative impacts on residential amenity. It stated that due to this, the General Industrial Zone contained no use standards to consider impacts on residential amenity. The planning authority considered that the Tourist Operation use class requires consideration of impacts to residential amenity in other zones. Therefore, given the site is adjacent to a General Residential Zone, additional standards are required to manage potential impacts on residential amenity.
6. The planning authority noted that the site is a local heritage place known as the Cadbury Industrial Estate - Factory. It advised that the site is a significant example of an Australian garden city inspired industrial development, which retains historical features including the landscape setting, historical rail line, and vehicular and pedestrian approaches to the main entrance. The planning authority stated that the SPPs do not provide for consideration of the relationship between development and the landscape, and the location or setting of development. It considered that as the draft amendment would allow a non-industrial development to be constructed, likely along the riverside and open space setting, unique heritage provisions are required to inform the assessment of future development.
7. The planning authority advised that the site was chosen for the factory due to its size and location, as part of Cadbury's 'factory by mountain and sea' philosophy. The planning authority submit that the Cadbury peninsula is a regionally significant and visually iconic site due to its unique and pronounced landform. It stated that the central siting of the Cadbury Factory enhances the peninsula's character and emphasises the site's garden city design principles. The planning authority stated that the site is visible from many viewpoints and due to this additional controls to protect key visual aspects of the site are required.
8. Regarding the use classes included in the SAP, in its submission dated 24 June 2025, the planning authority considered that:

While the introduction of the Tourist Operation use may satisfy the test under Section 32(4), there is insufficient information to demonstrate that the additional use classes - Community Meeting and Entertainment or General Retail and Hire, where part of a visitor experience associated with the Cadbury chocolate factory meet the same test. Although the proponent has stated that these uses would be limited to facilities supporting the visitor experience, the introduction of these uses in a vague and open-ended form could have long-term consequences. If the site operator changes in the future, the lack of strong and specific controls could allow for inappropriate uses under the guise of the original intent. (p. 3)

9. In its representation dated 19 February 2025, the applicant considered that proposed development standard GLE-S15.7.1 in the SAP, which applies to the siting of buildings, structures and landscape elements, does not satisfy section 32(4) of the Act. The applicant stated that the provision is not required to deal with unique features of the site and does not facilitate the development.

1. The Commission considers that the visitor experience, which includes several uses, would provide economic benefit to the region under section 32(4)(a) of the Act, as outlined in submissions from the applicant and planning authority.
2. The Commission notes that the planning authority considered that the Community Meeting and Entertainment, and General Retail and Hire use classes would not satisfy the section 32(4) criteria. The Commission disagrees with this opinion, as acknowledged by the planning authority these uses would, to some extent, form part of the visitor experience. The Commission considers that including these use classes (with the qualification that they must be associated with the Tourist Operation use), meets the section 32(4)(a) criteria for the same reasons provided for the Tourist Operation use class.
3. The Commission finds that the draft amendment satisfies section 32(4)(a) of the Act for social and economic reasons identified by the applicant and the planning authority.

1. The SAP inserts a new discretionary use class, with qualification, in the Light Industrial Zone and the General Industrial Zone.
2. The applicant advised that the visitor experience would mostly be located on land in the General Industrial Zone, and car parking associated with the visitor experience would be in the Light Industrial Zone (currently developed with a car park servicing the chocolate factory use).
3. The applicant acknowledged that the visitor experience would primarily fit within the Tourist Operation use class, and explained that the Community Meeting and Entertainment, and General Retail and Hire uses classes had been proposed for the following reasons:
   • The project intends to have retail offerings available as part of the chocolate emporium component of the visitor experience. It advised that the shop, which was previously located at the Cadbury Factory, was popular. The applicant stated that while the retail component could be considered as ancillary and subservient to the Tourist Operation use class, it sought to add it as a separate use class to avoid any doubt and future approval risk.
   • Part of the visitor experience includes a chocolate lounge, which would be available for private bookings. The applicant advised that the Community Meeting and Entertainment use class was sought to overcome the potential that the facility may be viewed as a function centre. It stated that the use class was included to avoid any doubt and approval risk.
   • All three use classes proposed by the applicant included qualifications. The applicant considered that the qualifications would avoid the potential for uses unrelated to the chocolate factory to operate at the site.
4. In its planning submission, the applicant stated:

It is important to understand that mitigating the potential risk that a component of the Project may be considered prohibited in the future, is a risk to the vision for the Project being implemented. > > As parameters of when an application is considered ancillary and subservient to a primary use, can at times be unclear, having confidence in the allowable uses on the site is an important part confidently preparing a full development application. (p. 4)

5. In its supporting report, the planning authority stated that the Community Meeting and Entertainment, and General Retail and Hire use classes are not supported, as Tourist Operation acts as an 'umbrella' use class for the subservient uses.
6. In its representation dated 19 February 2025, the applicant further reiterated that including the Community Meeting and Entertainment, and General Retail and Hire use classes, with qualification as discretionary use is appropriate and removed ambiguity in its application at the site. It stated that by not including these uses in the SAP, they are prohibited and reiterated that it could represent a risk to future applications. It concluded by stating that the use classes represent a limited discretionary pathway, which should alleviate concerns about allowing a broader range of uses under the Community Meeting and Entertainment, and General Retail and Hire use classes (unrelated to the visitor experience).
7. The matter was discussed at the hearing. Ms Clare Hester for the applicant stated that the omission of the Community Meeting and Entertainment, and General Retail and Hire use classes were not supported, as there is no guarantee that the planning authority will consider them as subservient uses in the future. Ms Hester advised that for certainty, the use classes should be included in the SAP. To support this statement, Ms Hester provided a scenario where the public may visit the site to purchase chocolate, but not attend the visitor experience. Therefore, having the potential to not be considered as a subservient use to the visitor experience under clause 6.2.2 of the SPPs.
8. After the hearing, the Commission asked the parties whether modifying the amendment to include the Community Meeting and Entertainment, and General Retail and Hire use classes in the SAP would constitute a substantial modification under section 40N of the Act.
9. In its submission dated 18 June 2025, the applicant advised that including all three use classes has been the position maintained by the applicant throughout the whole draft amendment process. It considered that including the use classes with qualification in the SAP use table would not constitute a substantial modification as the documents exhibited during the public consultation period clearly articulated the applicant's desire to include these use classes. The submission stated:

1.12 While it would modify the use table in the specific area plan, it does so to a limited degree, by including two additional use classes, but only 'where part of a visitor experience associated with the Cadbury chocolate factory'. > > 1.13 Importantly it does not seek a broad range of Community Meeting and Entertainment or General Retail and Hire uses classes and would be consistent with the plan purpose under the certified draft amendment to allow for use and development of a visitor experience associated with the Cadbury chocolate factory. (p. 2)

10. In contrast, the planning authority in its submission dated 24 June 2025, stated that including the additional use classes would constitute a substantial modification. It stated that this is because the use classes 'would represent a material change in policy relative to the advertised controls'. The planning authority considered that this is due to the applicant's indication at the hearing that suggested the additional use classes may be directly associated to, but not necessarily subservient to, the Tourist Operation.
11. In its response submission dated 1 July 2025, the applicant stated that the planning authority's position that the additional uses would represent a material change is strongly refuted. The applicant advised that it has been clear in its intention for including the Community Meeting and Entertainment, and General Retail and Hire use classes throughout this process, as identified in section 1.2 of its planning submission. It stated that:

The intention has always been that the Chocolate Emporium will operate similarly to the previous visitor centre shop that was operating from the site, in that it will be accessible to the public. Additionally, as described, there may be community events or functions held on the premises where tickets that would otherwise be required to gain access to the experience, are not required. (p. 2)

12. Following a review of the submissions, the Commission drafted a modified SAP and provided a copy to parties to confirm whether it achieves the intent of the proposal and is operationally accurate.
13. Moreover, the draft modified SAP sought to remove provisions that are already accommodated in the SPPs and provide clarity on the requirements for the future visitor experience. The SAP proposed to include Community Meeting and Entertainment, General Retail and Hire, and Tourist Operation use classes with qualification. The draft modified SAP contained the following use table, which would be in addition to, rather than in substitution of the use tables in the Light Industrial Zone and the General Industrial Zone:

Where part of a visitor experience associated with the Tourist Operation.

Where part of a visitor experience associated with the Tourist Operation.

If for a visitor experience associated with the Cadbury Chocolate Factory.

1. In its submission dated 28 July 2025, the planning authority raised two concerns regarding the use table.
2. Firstly, it suggested that the qualification for each use class be amended for clarity, consistency with the SPPs and consistency with the terminology in the SAP. The suggested modifications are below.

If for the Cadbury Visitor Experience associated with the Cadbury Chocolate Factory.

1. Secondly, the planning authority noted that the Community Meeting and Entertainment use class is already discretionary in the Light Industrial Zone without qualification. General Retail and Hire is a discretionary use class in the Light Industrial Zone with the qualification of 'If for alterations or extensions to existing General Retail and Hire'.

1. The Commission acknowledges the planning authority's opinion that the Community Meeting and Entertainment, and General Retail and Hire use classes are not required in the use table as they will be ancillary and subservient to the Tourist Operation use class. However, the Commission accepts the applicant's concern that there is no certainty within the SAP that these uses could occur, as it is open to interpretation by the planning authority and may impact the assessment of future applications.
2. The Commission finds that including the Community Meeting and Entertainment, and General Retail and Hire use classes in the use table with the qualification suggested by the planning authority is suitable for the intended use of the site.
3. The Commission considers that as the SAP is specific in its application, that is for the visitor experience use and development, duplicating Community Meeting and Entertainment, and General Retail and Hire in the Light Industrial Zone will not cause uncertainty for future planning permit application processes. This is because any Community Meeting and Entertainment, and General Retail and Hire use classes associated with the visitor experience would be assessed against the SAP use table, rather than the Light Industrial Zone use table.
4. The Commission notes that the application of the use table is contrary to the usual formatting for SAPs. The Commission considers that as the SAP purpose statements are specific to the site and the visitor experience, in this instance including the use table 'in addition to' the underlying zone's use table is appropriate, and more so than 'in substitution to' (essentially duplicating the zone's entire use table) as has been common practice.
5. The Commission considers that including the additional use classes in the SAP would constitute a modification rather than a substantial modification. This is because the qualifications for the use classes ensures that the uses must be associated with the Tourist Operation use. The intent for the use remains the same as that advertised during the exhibition period. Furthermore, the Commission notes that the additional uses are discretionary, which will afford the public opportunity to view and comment on any future proposals during the exhibition period.
6. The Commission finds that the Community Meeting and Entertainment, General Retail and Hire, and Tourist Operation use classes with qualification, as shown in Annexure A, are appropriate for the site.

1. The SAP would introduce use standards for uses under the Tourist Operation use class. The use standards are in addition to the provisions of clause 19.3 of the General Industrial Zone, and cover matters including hours of operation, external lighting, commercial vehicle movements, and land use conflict.
2. In its supporting report, the planning authority advised that the standards were included due to concerns raised by the planning officers about the impact of future Tourist Operation use and development on residential amenity. It stated that there are currently no sufficient provisions in the General Industrial Zone to assess impacts on residential amenity.
3. The planning authority stated in its supporting report that the use standards are required because:

... Code C9.0 [Attenuation Code] would not be applicable for the Tourist Operation use (or the proposed Community Meeting and Entertainment and General Retail and Hire uses), which could introduce new challenges not covered by the current planning scheme. (p. 100)

4. At the hearing, Ms Hester queried why clause GLE-S15.6.1 A4/P4 of the SAP is an automatic discretionary standard given that the visitor experience will be located on the same site as the industrial use. For reference, clause GLE-S15.6.1 A4/P4 states:

A Tourist Operation use must not compromise the industrial use of the site having regard to:

(a) the characteristics of the site;

(b) the size scale, and location of the proposed use; and

(c) the industrial functions of the site.

1. Furthermore, Ms Hester noted that the Tourist Operation use class qualification states that it must be associated with the industrial use at the site, being the Cadbury Factory.
2. Ms Angela Dionysopoulos of the planning authority advised that the standard was included because clause 19.3.1, which clause GLE-S15.6.1 A4/P4 is based on, applies to use on other (external) sites and would not apply to the subject site. Ms Darshini Bangaru Hyde of the planning authority added that the proposed uses at the site are only associated by name. All development is separate from each other, whereas the previous tours were part of the Cadbury Factory building. Ms Bangaru Hyde considered that the operation between the two uses is quite different to that previously provided.
3. Following the hearing the Commission requested submissions from parties on the inclusion of clause GLE-S15.6.1 A4/P4 of the SAP and whether clauses 18.3.1 and 19.3.1 of the SPPs would adequately address the matter.
4. In its submission dated 24 June 2025, the planning authority considered that clause GLE-S15.6.1 A4/P4 is included to ensure Tourist Operation uses do not compromise the primary (industrial) use of the site. It stated that clauses 18.3.1 and 19.3.1 of the SPPs achieves the intent only when the non-industrial use is on a separate site. In this case, the industrial and non-industrial uses would be provided on the same site. It stated that the non-industrial use is anticipated to be under separate ownership from the industrial use, which may be accommodated through a long-term lease. Due to these matters, the planning authority considered that clause GLE-S15.6.1 A4/P4 is required in the SAP.
5. In its submission dated 1 July 2025, the applicant considered that clause GLE-S15.6.1 A4/P4 is not necessary as the owner of the land will have ultimate control. It stated that:

Council's assumption that the proposed uses classes requested by the applicant, are ordinarily incompatible with industrial activity is incorrect. The requested uses do not fall within the definition of a sensitive use and are commercial land uses in characteristic. (p. 2)

6. The modified SAP prepared by the Commission proposed the following changes to the use standards:
   • modify the application of clause GLE-S15.6.1 A1/P1, A2/P2 and A3/P3 so it applies to the three use classes listed in the use table, rather than just the Tourist Operation use class
   • remove reference to the Low Density Residential and Rural Living zones in clause GLE-S15.6.1 A1/P1, A2/P2 and A3/P3,
   • remove reference to 'on a site' from clause GLE-S15.6.1 A1/P1, A2/P2, and
   • remove clause GLE-S15.6.1 A4/P4.
7. In submissions dated 25 July 2025 and 28 July 2025, the applicant and planning authority noted that 'on a site' in A1/P1 and A2/P2 was omitted from the draft modified SAP.

1. The Commission accepts the introduction of use standards for hours of operation, external lighting and commercial vehicle movements associated with the visitor experience. However, the Commission finds that a standard for land use conflict is unnecessary and already addressed through the zone standards of the SPPs. The relevant clauses are clause 18.3.1 of the Light Industrial Zone and clause 19.3.1 of the General Industrial Zone. Furthermore, the Commission notes that any potential land use conflict within the site would be internally managed by the owner and respective operators.
2. The Commission notes that there is no Low Density Residential or Rural Living zoned land in the vicinity of the site, nor is there likely to be in the future. The Commission finds that removing these zones from consideration of clause GLE-S15.6.1 A1/P1, A2/P2 and A3/P3 is appropriate.
3. The Commission considers that the inclusion of 'on a site' is unnecessary given the existing nature of the site and the distance from developable land in the site to residential use. The Commission considers that deleting it from clause GLE-S15.6.1 A1/P1, A2/P2 and A3/P3 is consistent with the drafting of the SPPs.
4. The Commission finds that the modified use standards, as shown in Annexure A, are appropriate for the site.

1. The SAP includes a new development standard for the siting of buildings, structures and landscape elements at clause GLE-S15.7.1. At the hearing, the planning authority advised that the clause only relates to Tourist Operation uses. The SAP states that this clause is in substitution to the provisions of the Local Historic Heritage Code clause C6.6.4.
2. In its supporting report, the planning authority advised that the clause has been included in the SAP due to the site's unique historical and cultural significance, particularly its 'garden-city principles' and 'industry in the garden' philosophy.
3. In its representation dated 20 February 2025, the applicant considered that the development standards are not required in the SAP as 'there are no inherent characteristics of a 'tourism' use that require a different approach'. (p.2)
4. Mr Leigh Woolley was engaged by the planning authority to prepare the Cadbury Peninsula - Cadbury Industrial Estate Visual Qualities Review dated October 2024 (visual qualities review). Mr Woolley advised that:

It is my firm opinion that there should be a requirement to consider the visual quality of any new development, and its potential impact on the factory from key viewing points.

5. Mr Woolley identified ten viewing points in the visual qualities review, including:
   • Cadbury Factory entry/carpark
   • Cadbury Factory waterside entry/avenue
   • Windermere foreshore community playground
   • Curlew Parade/foreshore
   • Knights Point/reserve
   • Montrose Bay Reserve/Elwick Bay
   • Dowsings Point
   • Woodville Bay
   • East Derwent Highway, and
   • Old Beach foreshore/hillside.
6. In response, the planning authority included a requirement for a VIA to be prepared for the site based on 5 of the 10 viewing points identified in the visual qualities review.
7. In its representation, the applicant stated that the planning authority interchangeably refers to a range of matters including the:
   • heritage values of the factory site
   • heritage values of the Cadbury precinct including residential areas
   • visual landscape value of the peninsula, and
   • overall spatial qualities.
8. The applicant submitted that if the planning authority considered that the Cadbury peninsula has specific spatial and landscape values, it should complete a thorough strategic planning exercise to identify these values and protect them through the planning scheme. Doing the exercise in response to a draft amendment is reactionary rather than strategic. It considered that protecting the garden estate peninsula could be better achieved through another mechanism, such as a heritage precinct.
9. The applicant engaged Purcell Architects to review the SAP development standards. In the applicant's representation, Purcell stated that:

Any visual landscape values should be assessed by a comprehensive study and be included within GLE-Table C6.3 Local Historic Landscape Precincts, and/or GLE-Table C8.1 Scenic Protection Areas as appropriate. (p. 3)

10. It concluded by stating that the scenic values of the area have not been proven and the requirement for a VIA is unreasonable.
11. In its section 40K report dated 14 April 2025, the planning authority stated in response to the applicant's representation that:

... upon further consideration it is agreed that mandating a Visual Impact Assessment is unnecessary. Additionally, rather than stipulating key views to the factory through Figure GLE-S15.3 as in the advertised SAP, it is considered more effective to describe them.

12. The planning authority provided the Commission with a modified SAP for consideration.
13. The SAP also required the preparation of a CMP 'focussed on the riverside setting, landscaped/open space frontage, approaches and connections to the Cadbury factory'.
14. In the applicant's email to the planning authority dated 19 December 2024, it raised concerns about the requirement for a CMP. In its supporting report, the planning authority considered that the requirement for a CMP is appropriate given the importance of the site's open space setting and that the requirement is consistent with clause 7.4.3 of the SPPs (relating to changes of use to a heritage place).
15. In its representation, the applicant considered that the inclusion of requiring a CMP is unreasonable and would be an improper use a CMP, a mechanism not designed for that purpose. It further stated that while clause 7.4 of the SPPs has regard to a CMP, this is because the clause allows consideration of a prohibited use to facilitate restoration, conservation and future maintenance of a heritage place. The situation is different for the visitor experience which would be in a new building. The applicant confirmed that there was no intention that the uses would facilitate any of these outcomes.
16. In its response to the representation, the planning authority stated in its section 40K report that a CMP is also required in clause 22.4.3 of the Sullivans Cove Planning Scheme 1997.
17. The Commission modified the SAP in response to discussions at the hearing and submissions received. The draft modified SAP proposed the following changes to the development standards:
    • apply the development standards to all three uses in the use table, rather than just Tourist Operation
    • refine the provisions of clause GLE-S15.7.1 P1(a), (b) and (c) of the SAP to align with the SPPs
    • focus on heritage values within the site rather than the area itself, and
    • remove the requirement for a VIA and CMP, noting that the requirement for a VIA was recommended for removal by the planning authority in response to representations.
18. In its submission dated 25 July 2025, the applicant noted a typographical error in clause S15.7.1 P1.
19. In its submission dated 28 July 2025, the planning authority stated that it does not support the removal of the requirement for a CMP. It stated that:

Council remains very firmly of the view that any use, and associated development, prohibited in the zone should be considered within a conservation management framework given the pre-existence of this requirement in the SPPs and the unique qualities of the Place. (p. 4)

20. Additionally, the planning authority considered that the removal of the requirement for a CMP would constitute a substantial modification to the draft amendment.

1. The Commission considers that the development standards identified in the SAP go beyond what is reasonably required for an assessment of a local heritage listed place. Specifically, this is in relation to the requirement for a VIA, CMP and consideration of visual impacts from distances outside the site.
2. The Commission agrees with the applicant that if visual values from surrounding areas are important, the planning authority should complete a strategic review of the area to determine the most appropriate protection measures. The Commission considers that the requirement for a VIA and consideration of views from distances outside the site are not necessary inclusions in the SAP. Furthermore, any visual impact on the site as viewed from key places would be as a result development rather than and irrespective of the use.
3. The Commission notes the planning authority's opinion that a CMP should be required as the SAP provides for new and currently prohibited uses to operate at the site. The Commission disagrees with this approach. This approach focuses on clause 7.4 of the SPPs, which allows the consideration of prohibited uses if it assists in conserving and restoring a heritage place. The draft amendment process reviews whether the proposed uses are appropriate for the site. In this instance, the Commission agrees with the applicant and finds that the uses are appropriate as qualified discretionary use classes in this circumstance. Furthermore, these future uses will be accommodated in new buildings, not the existing factory. While future development will be required to be sensitive to the heritage values of the site, the uses are not intended to be used as a mechanism to conserve or restore them.
4. The Commission acknowledges the heritage values at the site and the need to consider them for future planning permits. The planning authority has demonstrated that some additional provisions specific to the site could be incorporated into the SAP. These matters include view lines of the approaches to the factory, being the tree-lined vehicle and pedestrian paths, the Check Lodge, clock tower and industrial plant, and the former Cadbury Branch Line rail formation. However, the Commission finds that the requirements for a VIA and CMP go beyond what is necessary for the heritage considerations at the site.
5. The Commission finds that the development standards, as shown in Annexure A, are appropriate for the site and should be included in the SAP.

1. The relevant regional land use strategy is the Southern Tasmania Regional Land Use Strategy 2010-2025, amended 19 May 2025 (regional strategy).
2. In the applicant's planning submission, it stated that the draft amendment is consistent with the regional strategy as:
   • future development would need to be designed and constructed in a way that protects the existing heritage values of the site
   • locating the tourism use and existing industrial use at the site would allow for efficient use of land that is unlikely to be used for other purposes, and
   • the tourism use would build on the existing Cadbury Factory legacy, which adds a regionally competitive tourism experience.
3. Specifically, the applicant noted that the draft amendment is consistent with the regional policies for tourism. It stated that the draft amendment would facilitate tourism that can protect and enhance the local features and character of the site.
4. In its supporting report, the planning authority considered that the draft amendment is consistent with the regional strategy for the following reasons:
   • the site has been significantly altered from its natural state. The draft amendment would have minimal impact on the natural values that remain on the site
   • the site would retain all existing planning controls for coastal values, which is consistent with the water resources and the coastal policies of the regional strategy
   • the draft amendment does not propose to remove or modify existing overlays at the site. The landslip, coastal erosion and flood hazard overlays would still apply. Therefore, the draft amendment is consistent with the managing risks and hazards policy
   • the draft amendment introduces new standards for heritage considerations, which is consistent with the cultural values policy
   • public access to the site is not proposed to be removed as part of the draft amendment. Therefore, the draft amendment is consistent with the recreation and open space policy, and
   • the draft amendment supports a new tourism use while ensuring the protection and enhancement of the local features and character of the site.

1. The Commission is satisfied with the justification provided by the applicant and planning authority.
2. The Commission considers that the draft amendment is specifically consistent with the tourism policies and objectives, as the visitor experience is expected to attract over 500,000 visitors annually and contribute a further $120 million in visitor spending, as stated by the applicant.
3. The Commission finds that the draft amendment is, as far as practicable, consistent with the regional strategy.

1. The relevant strategic plan is the Glenorchy City Council Strategic Plan 2023-2032 (strategic plan), March 2023.
2. In its planning submission, the applicant stated that:

Unlike the previous strategic plan, the current GSP [strategic plan] has minimal direction relevant to the proposed amendment. That said, the Project aligns with the strategy of maintaining a progressive approach that encourages investment and jobs associated with 'We encourage responsible growth for our City' under the open for business community goal. (p. 22)

3. In its supporting report, the planning authority considered that the draft amendment aligns with the strategic plan as it would promote investment and job creation while protecting the local heritage place.

1. The Commission is satisfied with the justification provided by the applicant and planning authority.
2. The applicant finds that the draft amendment has regard to the strategic plan.

1. In its planning submission, the applicant considered that the draft amendment would retain all planning controls associated with use and development in the coastal zone.
2. The applicant advised that the proposed location of the future uses would be in the coastal zone, and that the location has been considered against the State Coastal Policy 1996 (Coastal Policy), which will be subject to provisions and standards under state and federal legislation.
3. In its supporting report, the planning authority considered that future use and development, including a potential ferry-based water access, may have potential negative impacts to the Derwent Estuary. It stated that any future use and development would be assessed against the relevant zones and codes to ensure the coastal values are protected. The planning authority considered that the draft amendment aligns with the Coastal Policy.

1. The applicant advised in its planning submission that the land is serviced with reticulated services. It stated that future development would require connection to existing infrastructure and therefore it is unlikely that there would be direct impact on water quality from the future visitor experience use and development.
2. In its supporting report, the planning authority stated that the draft amendment would not result in an increase in sediment transport to surface waters. It advised that appropriate water quality management measures would be applied at the planning permit stage. The planning authority considered that the draft amendment aligns with the State Policy on Water Quality Management (Water Quality Management Policy).

State Policy on the Protection of Agricultural Land 2009

1. The site is not identified as agricultural land. Therefore, the State Policy on the Protection of Agricultural Land 2009 is not applicable.

1. In its planning submission, the applicant advised that the site has an industrial history and had an active underground petroleum tank which is now decommissioned. Due to this, there is potential for contamination at the site. The applicant considered that this matter would be addressed through the Potentially Contaminated Land Code at the planning permit stage.
2. The planning authority stated in its supporting report that the draft amendment allows new use, which is not a sensitive use. It agreed with the applicant that given the nature of the site, contamination issues would be appropriately addressed under the Potentially Contaminated Land Code.
3. The planning authority further stated that matters in relation to air and water quality would be addressed through the SPP stormwater provisions, the Natural Assets Code, the Attenuation Code, the Urban Drainage Act 2013, and the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994. It considered that the draft amendment aligns with the National Environment Protection Measures (NEPMs).

1. The Commission considers that the provisions in the SAP would not impact on the objectives and policies of the State Policies and NEPMs. The Commission is satisfied with the justification provided by the applicant and planning authority.
2. The Commission finds that the draft amendment is consistent with each State Policy.

Resource Management and Planning System Objectives

1. In its planning submission, the applicant considered that the draft amendment furthers the objectives of the Act. It stated that the draft amendment would facilitate additional uses at the site which would allow for a visitor experience. It considered that this would facilitate economic development for the region. Additionally, it stated that the draft amendment would provide for orderly development opportunity that maximises the use of the land.
2. In its supporting report, the planning authority agreed that the draft amendment furthers the objectives of the Act. It considered that the draft amendment would allow:

... for economic growth in an urban location with no threatened species or vegetation communities on or near the subject land... The recommended SAP will not harm the environment, provided that adequate assessment measures are applied to future development, as ensured by the existing code overlays within the SPPs. (p. 4)

3. Additionally, the planning authority advised that the site is a local heritage listed place and that the heritage provisions in the SPPs and SAP will be applied at the planning permit stage. It considered that this furthers objective Part 2(g) of the Act.

1. The Commission is satisfied with the justification provided by the applicant and planning authority.
2. The Commission considers that the draft amendment would specifically further Part 1(d) and Part 2(g) of the Act, which relate to economic development and places of historical interest.
3. The Commission finds that the draft amendment furthers the objectives of the Act.

1. Under section 40M of the Act the Commission must consider whether modifications to a draft amendment of an LPS ought to be made.
2. The Commission considers that modifications are required to the draft amendment. The Commission makes the following modifications:
   • amendments to the plan purpose to focus on the specific reason for the SAP
   • amendments to the application of this plan to include the uses directly related to the Cadbury Visitor Experience
   • amend the use table to be in addition to the Light Industrial Zone - Clause 18.2 and the General Industrial Zone - Clause 19.2 rather than in substitution of the zones use tables
   • amend the use table to include Community Meeting and Entertainment, and General Retail and Hire with qualification
   • apply the use standards to the Community Meeting and Entertainment, General Retail and Hire, and Tourist Operation use classes, rather than only the Tourist Operation use class
   • remove the requirement for distances to be measured 'on a site', to be consistent with the SPPs
   • amend the objective of the use standards to match the provisions of the clause
   • minor amendments to the use standards to remove reference to the Low Density Residential Zone and Rural Living Zone
   • remove clause GLE-S15.6.1 A4/P4
   • apply the development standards to the Community Meeting and Entertainment, General Retail and Hire, and Tourist Operation use classes, rather than only the Tourist Operation use class
   • amend the objective of the development standards to guide the provisions of the clause
   • remove the provisions relating to a VIA and CMP in the development standards, and
   • remove Figure GLE-S15.3 Key public views to the Cadbury Industrial Estate - Factory.
3. In written submissions following the hearing, the planning authority considered that the above modifications would constitute a substantial modification, stating that the intent is different to that of the exhibited draft amendment.
4. The Commission considers that the above changes can be considered a modification rather than a substantial modification. The Commission finds that it was the intent throughout the whole draft amendment process to provide for the limited (or qualified) Community Meeting and Entertainment, General Retail and Hire, and Tourist Operation use classes to operate at the site. Furthermore, the Commission considers that the use and development standards still achieve a similar intent to those exhibited, but through less onerous provisions. Therefore, while use classes have been added and standards have been modified, the SAP still achieves and reflects the intent as exhibited in the draft amendment.
5. Additionally, it is noted that each of the proposed new uses are qualified to ensure they are associated with the Cadbury Visitor Experience. Their discretionary use status will afford the public to engage in the statutory exhibition processes at the time of application and ensure natural justice.

1. Subject to the modifications described above, the Commission is satisfied that the draft amendment meets the LPS criteria and gives its approval.

Modified amendment PLAM-24/01 to the Tasmanian Planning Scheme - Glenorchy

1. Apply the Cadbury Visitor Experience Specific Area Plan overlay to 100 Cadbury Road, Claremont, as shown below.

1. Insert the GLE-S15.0 Cadbury Visitor Experience Specific Area Plan, as shown below.

GLE-S15.0 Cadbury Visitor Experience Specific Area Plan

The purpose of the Cadbury Visitor Experience Specific Area Plan is:

GLE-S15.1.1 To allow for the use and development of a Cadbury Visitor Experience, associated with the Cadbury Chocolate Factory.

GLE-S15.1.2 To ensure that the Cadbury Visitor Experience and associated uses do not cause an unreasonable loss of residential amenity in the adjacent residential zones.

GLE-S15.1.3 To ensure that development associated with the Cadbury Visitor Experience is designed to respect the heritage significance of the Cadbury Industrial Estate - Factory local heritage place.

GLE-S15.2.1 This specific area plan applies to the area of land designated as GLE-S15.0 Cadbury Visitor Experience Specific Area Plan on the overlay maps and in Figure GLE-S15.1.

GLE-S15.2.2 In the area of land this plan applies to, the provisions of the Specific Area Plan are in addition to and a modification to the provisions of:

(a) Light Industrial Zone;

(b) General Industrial Zone; and

(c) Local Historic Heritage Code,

GLE-S15.2.3 This specific area plan applies to the following Cadbury Visitor Experience uses:

(a) Community Meeting and Entertainment;

(b) General Retail and Hire; and

(c) Tourist Operation.

This clause is not used in this specific area plan.

This clause is not used in this specific area plan.

This clause is in addition to the Light Industrial Zone - Clause 18.2 Use Table and General Industrial Zone - Clause 19.2 Use Table.

If for the Cadbury Visitor Experience associated with the Cadbury Chocolate Factory.

This clause is in addition to the provisions of the General Industrial Zone - Clause 19.3 Use Standards.

That uses do not cause an unreasonable loss of residential amenity to residential zones.

Hours of operation within 50m of a General Residential Zone or Inner Residential Zone, must be within the hours of:

(a) 7.00am to 9.00pm Monday to Saturday; and

(b) 8.00am to 9.00pm Sunday and public holidays.

Hours of operation within 50m of a General Residential Zone or Inner Residential Zone, must not cause an unreasonable loss of amenity to the residential zone, having regard to:

(a) the timing, duration or extent of vehicle movements; and

(b) noise, lighting or other emissions.

External lighting within 50m of a General Residential Zone or Inner Residential Zone, must:

(a) not operate within the hours of 11.00pm to 6.00am, excluding any security lighting; and

(b) if for security lighting, be baffled so that direct light does not extend into the adjoining property.

External lighting within 50m of a General Residential Zone or Inner Residential Zone, must not cause an unreasonable loss of amenity to the residential zone, having regard to:

(a) the level of illumination and duration of lighting; and

(b) the distance to habitable rooms of an adjacent dwelling.

Commercial vehicle movements and the unloading and loading of commercial vehicles within 50m of a General Residential Zone or Inner Residential Zone, must be within the hours of:

(a) 7.00am to 9.00pm Monday to Saturday; and

(b) 8.00am to 9.00pm Sunday and public holidays.

Commercial vehicle movements and the unloading and loading of commercial vehicles within 50m of a General Residential Zone or Inner Residential Zone, must not cause an unreasonable loss of amenity to the residential zone, having regard to:

(a) the time and duration of commercial vehicle movements;

(b) the number and frequency of commercial vehicle movements;

(c) the size of commercial vehicles involved;

(d) manoeuvring required by the commercial vehicles, including the amount of reversing and associated warning noise;

(e) any noise mitigation measures between the vehicle movement areas and the adjoining residential areas; and

(f) potential conflicts with other traffic.

GLE-S15.7 Development Standards for Buildings and Works

GLE-S15.7.1 Siting of buildings, structures and landscape elements

This clause is in substitution of the provisions of the Local Historic Heritage Code - Clause C6.6.4 Siting of buildings and structures.

That the siting of buildings, works and landscaping for a Cadbury Visitor Experience:

(a) is compatible with the local historic heritage significance of the Cadbury Industrial Estate - Factory local heritage place; and

(b) considers the site's heritage setting.

The siting of buildings, works and landscaping for the Cadbury Visitor Experience must be designed to be compatible with the local historic heritage significance of the Cadbury Industrial Estate - Factory local heritage place, having regard to:

(a) the historic heritage values of the local heritage place as identified in GLE-Table C6.1 Local Heritage Places;

(b) any historic heritage values identified in a report prepared by a suitably qualified person;

(c) the topography of the site;

(d) the size, shape, and orientation of the lot;

(e) retention of the clear connection between the Cadbury Factory and its extensive open parklands and setting west of the industrial buildings and plant including historical vehicular, pedestrian and tree-lined approaches to the Check Lodge and views through to the clock tower and industrial plant beyond, as shown in Figure GLE-S15.2; and

(f) the legibility of the former Cadbury Branch Line rail formation, as shown in Figure GLE-S15.2, in the landscape.

GLE-S15.8 Development Standards for Subdivision

This clause is not used in this specific area plan.

This clause is not used in this specific area plan.

Figure GLE-S15.1 Cadbury Visitor Experience Specific Area Plan

Figure GLE-S15.2 Aerial map of the site showing selected heritage attributes