The draft amendment is modified under section 40N(1)(b) of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 as set out in Annexure A and is approved under section 40Q.

On 18 October 2024, the Commission decided to modify the draft King Island Local Provisions Schedule (draft LPS). The King Island LPS (as modified) became effective on 18 December 2024.

As part of its 18 October 2024 decision, the Commission found that the draft LPS required substantial modification and accordingly, under section 35KB of the Act, the Commission directed the planning authority to prepare a draft amendment to the King Island LPS and to submit the draft amendment to the Commission after the LPS came into effect.

Draft amendment AMD 02/2025 is one of five draft amendments to the King Island LPS prepared in response to the Commission's direction. The King Island planning authority has publicly exhibited the draft amendment in accordance with section 40G and provided the Commission with its section 40K report.

AMD 02/2025 is to apply the Landscape Conservation Zone (LCZ) in lieu of the Particular Purpose Zone King Island Rural Area (PPZ-KIRA), the KIC-S1.0 Fences in the King Island Rural Area Specific Area Plan (SAP) and the Local Area Objectives overlay for clause KIC-P4.2.1 as applied in the certified draft LPS to the following properties:

a) 294 Red Hut Road, Lymwood folio of the Register 149017/2

b) Red Hut Road, Lymwood folios of the Register 157134/1, 157134/2,157134/3 and 157134/4; and

c) adjoining road reserves to the road centrelines.

The site comprises 5 adjoining titles with a combined area of approximately 922ha. Except for folio of the Register 149017/2, the remaining 4 titles are owned by one entity. The site is located southwest of Grassy on the southern coast of King Island. The site is substantially vegetated and included in conservation covenants.

Land to the west of the site is Crown land, known as the Colliers Swamp Conservation Area, proclaimed under the Nature Conservation Act 2002. The conservation area is zoned Environmental Management. Otherwise, land surrounding the site is zoned the PPZ-KIRA.

One representation was received from the Department of State Growth. The representation advised that all land parcels are within an exploration licence and partially mapped as areas of high prospectivity in the MRT LISTMap layer. The representation objected to the LCZ because the use class Extractive Industry is prohibited in that zone which would effectively prevent the future development of any mineral resource on the land. The representation referred to and supported the Council's submissions to the LPS hearings opposing the application of the LCZ that stated:

• 'The purpose of the PPZ King Island Rural Area is to balance the agricultural use of the rural area with features of natural and landscape value which require protection.
• Some of the properties containing conservation covenants are also used for farming, which is not an appropriate use under the Landscape Conservation Zone.

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.

Planning authority's response to the representations

The planning authority's section 40K report of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (the Act) considered the representation and advised that extractive industry could be of higher priority than protecting landscape values. The report contended the provisions of PPZ-KIRA and application of the Natural Assets Code overlays can protect landscape values. The report recommended reinstatement of the PPZ-KIRA and KIC-S1.0 Fences in the King Island Rural Area Specific Area Plan.

The hearing was held at the Commission's office on Level 3, 144 Macquarie Street, Hobart on 8 September 2025.

Planning authority: Heidi Goess, Plan Place for King Island Council

Charlotte Almond, Development Services Manager (Observing)

Representors: Claire Armstrong, Senior Strategic Planner, Department of State Growth (DSG)

Ben Waining, Director of Mining Policy, Mineral Resources Tasmania Department of State Growth

Bec Guard, Mineral Resources Tasmania Department of State Growth (Observing)

Interested parties: Anna Povey, Land for Wildlife Coordinator, Tasmanian Land Conservancy

Richard Cuskelly, Planning Policy Officer, Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (NRE)

Ann Hamilton, Private Land Conservation Program Team Leader, NRE.

1. Under section 40M of 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 to consider the issues in the representation.
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. Written submissions were received prior to the hearing from parties that attended the earlier LPS hearings. The submissions from these parties contended the LCZ should apply to the land with conservation covenants.
2. The Tasmanian Land Conservancy (31 July 2025) submitted that the LCZ for Lymwood was the most appropriate zone for conservation covenanted land. Almost the whole covenanted area supports various threatened vegetation communities and species listed as endangered under national legislation and that Tasmanian Vegetation Database (TASVEG) Live mapping shows greater areas of various threatened vegetation communities than previously mapped.
3. The area supports significant threatened fauna with some listed nationally as Critically Endangered with two of the three Australian birds most at risk of going extinct in the next 20 years. The covenanted land is a very large area of native vegetation, especially significant in the context of King Island which has been extensively cleared.
4. These covenanted properties also connect to Colliers Swamp Conservation Area, which is zoned Environmental Management, thus forming an even larger area that would be compatibly zoned.
5. Conservation Landholders Tasmania (4 August 2025) submitted:
   • excised from exploration licences, however 89 of those titles covered by active exploration licences have been rezoned to LCZ during the 27 completed Draft LPS processes.
   • 97.4 % of the potential resources identified as 'high prospectivity for metallic minerals' in the Lymwood/Grassy area are actually outside of the five covenanted titles.
   • LCZ will not prevent future exploitation of the small areas of potential metallic mineral resources as there are provisions under LUPAA to consider a future case on its merits if there are not any less destructive alternatives.
   • In Tasmania's Resource Management and Planning System there is no priority of one Considered on a state-wide basis the majority of covenanted titles are land use over another.
   • Section 8A Guideline No. 1 and the 22 April 2021 Planners Portal advice indicate that LCZ is the most appropriate zone for the large cluster of covenanted titles.
6. The submission from NRE (25 August 2025) advised:
   • The application of the LCZ to the Lymwood properties is supported as they collectively hold very significant natural values unique to King Island.
   • 'TASVEG Live' is the most appropriate LIST dataset to gauge the presence of these threatened communities on King Island. The layer is sourced from the recent NRE Tas King Island Vegetation Mapping Revision Project 2023. It is significantly more accurate than the 'Threatened Native Vegetation Communities 2020 (TNVC 2020)' LIST dataset (which is based on 'TASVEG 4.0').
   • The threatened vegetation communities are listed under Schedule 3A of the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002. The nationally protected native vegetation communities provide vital habitat for fauna endemic to King Island that includes fauna endangered at the State level and critically endangered at the National level.
   • Colliers Swamp-Seal Bay is listed in the Tasmanian Geoconservation Database as having District-level significance for geomorphology with the wetland significance stated as possibly the least modified by artificial drainage either directly or in the catchment.
7. The submission included a map showing both State and National-Listed threatened native vegetation communities.

1. At the hearing Ms Goess reiterated the recommendation in the Planning Authority's s.40K report for the LPS provisions applying to the site. This should be Particular Purpose Zone King Island Rural Area (PPZ-KIRA), the KIC-S1.0 Fences in the King Island Rural Area Specific Area Plan (SAP) and the Local Area Objectives overlay for clause KIC-P4.2.1.
2. In support of these provisions Ms Goess contended the application of PPZ-KIRA to the site was consistent with the comprehensive application of the Particular Purpose Zone (PPZ) to the rural area of King Island and that the PPZ allowed for the protection of natural values and landscape values through the operation of development standards - such as clauses KIC-P4.6.1 Building Height, KIC-P4.6.2 Setbacks and KIC-P4.6.3 Landscape values. These standards protect landscape values in any assessment of use and development on these lots. C7.0 Natural Assets Code provides further protection as the lots are within the Priority Vegetation Area overlay. Ms Goess confirmed that the site did not display any farming practices.
3. Ms Goess advised that extractive industry was a permitted use in the PPZ-KIRA unless a permit application was for a Level 2 activity where the application would be discretionary.

1. Regarding the planning scheme provisions as detailed in the planning authority's section 40K report, the preferred zoning applying to the site is the PPZ-KIRA, together with KIC-S1.0 Fences in the King Island Rural Area SAP and the Local Area Objectives overlay for clause KIC-P4.2.1.
2. The section 40K report contended that PPZ-KIRA along with the standards KIC-P4.6.1 Building Height, KIC-P4.6.2 Setbacks, KIC-P4.6.3 Landscape values and C7.0 Natural Assets Code would protect the natural values of the site.
3. The zone purpose for PPZ-KIRA is primarily aimed at an agriculture use, yet zone purpose KICP4.1.4 states:

'To provide for compatible use and development that minimises the impact on the natural and cultural, scenic and landscape values of King Island.'

1. The related local area objectives for PPZ-KIRA focus on agricultural land and uses and extractive industry with no reference to natural values except for KICP4.2.1(c)(iii) which states:

'development, other than for extractive industry or agricultural use, is sited to minimise its visual impact on the coastal and rural landscapes when viewed from public areas such as roads or coastal foreshores;'

22.1.1 To provide for the protection, conservation and management of landscape values.

22.1.2 To provide for compatible use or development that does not adversely impact on the protection, conservation and management of the landscape values.

1. Compared to PPZ-KIRA, the LCZ purpose statements focus is on conservation values, whereas PPZ-KIRA focus is on agriculture, but does reference development that is compatible and that minimises impacts on natural values. The Commission finds, in consideration of zone purpose and the natural values of the site, the LCZ is preferred.
2. Building Height in the zone allows for a permitted maximum building height of 12m for resource development under clause KIC-P4.6.1 of PPZ-KIRA is compared to a maximum 6m height for all development in the LCZ. The performance criteria for both zones have broadly similar intent including an assessment of landscape values. However, the building height performance criteria for PPZ-KIRA is does 'not unreasonably impact on the coastal or rural landscapes', whereas for the LCZ it is 'compatible with landscape values'.
3. The building height standard for PPZ-KIRA has a focus on landscape values as a visual assessment whereas under the LCZ the focus is on natural landscape values. The Commission finds, in consideration of the assessment criteria for the building height standard, the LCZ is capable of being more respective of the natural values of the site.
4. In consideration of the landscape values, PPZ-KIRA includes the standard P4.6.3 Landscape values that has the objective:

'That development is compatible with the coastal and rural landscapes when viewed from roads and public places adjoining the site'

The corresponding Acceptable Solutions and Performance Criteria concern only 'residential and visitor accommodation'.

1. The equivalent standard in the LCZ is 22.4.4 Landscape protection. This standard concerns all building and works (another standard concerns visitor accommodation) The objective for the standard is:

'That the landscape values of the site and surrounding area protected and managed to minimise adverse impacts'

1. For the LCZ, landscape values are not confined to the protection of visual values of the landscape. The Commission finds, in relation to standards that protect landscape values, clause 22.4.4 Landscape protection of the LCZ is preferred.
2. The Priority Vegetation Area overlay of the Natural Assets Code has application under both PPZ -KIRA and the LCZ. The application of the code is not a determinant on the zoning of site.
3. The evidence for Department of State Growth (DSG) suggested the Environmental Management Zone (EMZ) is preferred to the LCZ as the use classification extractive industry is discretionary in the EMZ. While the zone purpose for the EMZ has a good fit for the natural values of the site and the site adjoins the Colliers Swamp Conservation Area areas zoned EMZ, the zone is not before the Commission for assessment.

Extractive Industries and Conservation Values

1. At the hearing, DSG in support of their representation and the recommendation of the planning authority in their section 40K report, Ms Armstrong referred to strategies 1 and 5 of clause 4.3.3 Extractive Industry of the draft Tasmanian Planning Policies that concern the protection of strategic resources and support for future mineral extraction.
2. Ms Armstrong contended that zoning the land as Landscape Conservation may fetter future extractive industry and that the Environmental Management Zone (consistent with the adjoining land) would be preferred for the site rather than Landscape Conservation.
3. Mr Waining for Mineral Resources Tasmania (MRT) described the operation of the Mineral Resources Development Act 1995 concerning the rights and obligations for mining exploration licences and the issue of mining licences. An exploration licence has been in place over the site for 25 years. The current exploration licence applying to the site expires in 2026 but can be renewed. The mapping of high prospectivity for metallic minerals over part of the site was based on a model that was derived at a regional scale rather than being informed by the specific geology of the site.
4. An exploration licence grants exclusive right to apply for a mining lease. Mr Waining acknowledged that activities conducted under an exploration licence were exempt from the provisions of a planning scheme through section 11(3) of the Act. He said that the fact that extractive industry is a prohibited use class in the LCZ amounted to an impediment that would discourage future exploration activity.
5. Mr Waining gave weight to the fact that all minerals, except category 3 minerals, are owned by the Crown and mining is at the discretion of the Minister. Mr Waining contended that the planning scheme should not add to the difficulty of gaining permits for accessing important mineral resources through the use class of extractive industry being classified as prohibited in the LCZ.
6. Mr Waining stated that the existence of a conservation covenant had no weight under the Mineral Resources Development Act 1995. He also stated that the future demand for minerals is not known and that limits should not be imposed on the future potential for mining to occur on this land. If mining did occur, he said that it would only affect a relatively small footprint, and the balance of the land could still be protected by the covenant.
7. Mr Cuskelly and Ms Hamilton for the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (NRE) described the State and National significance of the site and protections applying under the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002 and Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. It was submitted that:
   • NRE mapping showed the site to be in good condition supporting species that were critically endangered.
   • The area of the conservation covenants represented a band of largely undisturbed protected vegetation adjoining the adjacent reserved land that included Colliers Swamp Conservation Area.
   • Some of the vegetation meets Commonwealth listing as critically endangered.
   • If a mining permit was to be granted permits would be required under the Nature Conservation Act 2022 and referral for assessment under Commonwealth legislation.
   • NRE supported the site being included in the Landscape Conservation Zone and the PPZ-KIRA focus on agriculture was not acceptable for the protection of the significant natural values on the site.
8. Mr Thompson for Conservation Landholders Tasmania stated the conservation covenants applying to the site were held in perpetuity and the values recognised under the international Convention on Biological Diversity. Mr Thompson contended that the conservation covenants recognised the Government commitment to protecting the area in perpetuity. He also identified that there are provisions in the Act if there was the sufficient case to amend the planning scheme provisions. Conservation Landholders Tasmania supported the zoning of the site as Landscape Conservation.
9. Ms Povey advised that the Tasmanian Land Conservancy was formed to protect nature on private land. She submitted that the conservation value of this land should be considered relative to King Island as a whole (which has so little native vegetation) and that the zoning should be consistent with the conservation covenants. The Tasmanian Land Conservancy supported the zoning of the site as Landscape Conservation.

1. The site is subject to an exploration license and is partly included in the high prospectivity mapped area. The land under exploration licence is considerably larger than the site and the prospectivity mapped area covers some 2.6% of the site as estimated in the evidence for Conservation Landholders Tasmania. The mineral resources of the site are unknown.
2. The conservation covenants applying to the site have been made under the Nature Conservation Act 2002. The covenants are:
   • Covenant C810217 (2008) applies to CT14917/2.
   • Covenant C934284 (2010) Applies to all the titles comprising the site except CT14917/2.
3. The purpose of the covenants is to protect natural values. In respect to mining, the landowner covenants to not undertake the 'removal or disturbance of soil, rock or other mineral resources ...' and turning to C934284, the objectives are stated to:
   • 'protect in perpetuity:
   • the natural values of the land; and
   • the CAR (comprehensive, adequate and representative) values and establish and maintain the land as part of the CAR Reserve System...'
4. The site comprises one of the few remaining large areas of intact natural vegetation on King Island that also is in private ownership. The Commission finds the existence of conservation covenants confirms the natural values of the site and provides a compelling case for the LCZ.
5. The evidence from NRE and Tasmanian Land Conservancy went to the high natural values of the site supporting threatened vegetation communities and threatened fauna, including that which is endangered and critically endangered and includes habitat for fauna endemic to King Island. The natural values of the site are protected under State and Commonwealth legislation. The evidence on the natural values was not contested. The Commission accordingly finds the site has significant natural values worthy of protection.

1. At the hearing in relation to the LPS criteria (section 34(2) of the Act), Ms Goess referred to the PPZ-KIRA and section 32(4) significant economic benefit and policies in the Cradle Coast Regional Land Use Strategy for the importance of mining to the region as meeting the section 34(2) LPS criteria.

1. The relevant parts of section 34(2) LPS Criteria of the Act are considered below.

1. A significant part of the site is in the coastal zone as defined in the State Coastal Policy (Coastal Policy). The evidence on the protection of natural values of the site is consistent with the outcome of the Coastal Policy for the 'Protection of natural and cultural values of the coastal zone' and related outcomes concerning 'natural resources and ecosystems'. The Coastal Policy also provides for mining under the outcome 'Sustainable development of coastal areas and resources'. Unlike the natural values, the mining resources are unknown and any future approval processes will be assessed against the Coastal Policy.
2. The draft amendment is consistent with the Coastal Policy.

1. The State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997 (Water Quality Policy) has application to the site. There is no evidence that the LCZ is not consistent with the Water Quality Policy.

State Policy on the Protection of Agriculture Land 2009

1. The evidence was that the site is not agriculture land as defined in the State Policy on the Protection of Agriculture Land 2009 (PAL Policy). The PAL Policy does not apply to the site.

Cradle Coast Regional Land Use Strategy 2010-2030

1. The Cradle Coast Regional Land Use Strategy 2010-2030 (regional strategy) acknowledges the mineralised significance of the region including King Island and states 'Land use planning can assist the mining sector by ensuring access to known resources... is not constrained by encroachment of sensitive uses.' (P46). The regional strategy contends because of unique circumstances a 'nuanced approach' to matters relating to King Island.
2. The regional strategy also states 'areas outside formal reserves which complement, link or enhance areas of conservation status, regional identity or local character are managed to retain natural values and function'.
3. In consideration of the regional strategy and a nuanced approach where the natural values are significant and known the LCZ is preferred. The Commission finds the draft amendment is consistent with the regional land use strategy.

1. The evidence for DSG drew upon strategies 1 and 5 of clause 4.3.3 Extractive Industry of the draft Tasmanian Planning Policies that concern the protection of strategic resources and support for future mineral extraction.
2. Correspondingly the draft TPPs at clause 2.1 seeks the protection and conservation of Tasmania's biodiversity.
3. Guidance on the application of the TPPs includes 'Where the Act requires a planning instrument to be consistent with the TPPs, the TPPs must be considered in their entirety to determine those strategies that are relevant to the particular matter'
4. As the TPPs have not been made, the Commission does not make a finding that the draft amendment 'satisfies the relevant criteria in relation to the TPPs'.

1. The Commission finds the LCZ furthers the Schedule 1 objective Part 1 1(a)

'to promote the sustainable development of natural and physical resources and the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity'.

1. The Commission notes the instrument map exhibited by the planning authority was not consistent with the instrument map included in the decision under section 35KB dated 18 October 2024.
2. The exhibited map excluded a small area of land at 294 Red Hut Road, Lymwood folio of the Register 149017/2.
3. The Commission considers this to be in error minor in nature and modifies the draft amendment to be consistent with the direction from the section 35KB decision and the title boundaries.

1. The Commission's decision on the King Island LPS established that it accepted the evidence in support of the application of the LCZ to the site and it considered application of the zone is consistent with Guideline No.1 that assists with the uniform application of the State Planning Provisions. However, the decision on the draft LPS zoning of the site was deferred in accordance with the substantial modification provisions of the Act as there may be a public interest.
2. The Commission considers that exhibition of the draft amendment and subsequent hearing of the representation has given sufficient opportunity for any matters of public interest to be raised.
3. The site has significant conservation values that are recognised through State and Commonwealth legislation and confirmed through conservation covenants. The LCZ is a better fit for the site's natural values than the PPZ-KIRA. PPZ-KIRA purpose prioritises agriculture and conservation values are not the primary focus. While the site has an exploration license and is partly included in the high prospectivity mapped area, the resource for mining is unknown. If a mining licence was to be considered for any part of the site, the approval process can include amendments to the King Island LPS specific to requirements rather than the prospect of a discretionary approval process as would be the case under PPZ-KIRA.
4. The Commission is satisfied that the draft amendment as modified meets the LPS criteria and gives its approval.

Modified amendment AMD 02/2025 to the Tasmanian Planning Scheme - King Island

Apply the Landscape Conservation Zone to the following properties as shown in Figure below and remove the KIC-S1.0 Fences in the King Island Rural Area Specific Area Plan and the Local Area Objectives overlay for clause KIC-P4.2.1:

a. 294 Red Hut Road, Lymwood folio of the Register 149017/2;

1. Red Hut Road, Lymwood folios of the Register 157134/1, 157134/2, 157134/3 and 157134/4; and