Permit LDA-063/2024 - Demolish existing buildings and install internal services and access infrastructure at 16 Port Sorell Road and 6183 Frankford Road, Wesley Vale

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.

It is determined that the permit cannot be considered by the Commission under section 42A of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 as it is not a request to which section 40T(1) relates.

The draft amendment proposes to amend the LAT-1.0 Bellfield Industrial Specific Area Plan (SAP) by:

• inserting a new precinct, Precinct D, which applies to 16 Port Sorell Road, Latrobe (the site)
• amending the LAT-S1.1 Plan Purpose statements to acknowledge Precinct D;
• inserting additional qualifications in the SAP to limit the range of allowable uses in the Rural Zone
• inserting additional use standards for Precinct D relating to use area, stormwater management and hours of operation, and
• inserting additional development standards relating to setbacks to the Bass Highway, stormwater infrastructure, and landscaping requirements.

The permit application provides for the construction of service infrastructure, including the upgrade of an existing vehicle access, extension of a shared private roadway, and provision of stormwater and electricity infrastructure.

The site is comprised of one title, located at 16 Port Sorell Road, Latrobe (folio of the Register 135671/1). The site has an area of 13.87ha and contains a concrete batching plant, single dwelling, associated outbuildings and a dam. The remaining area of the site is used as a paddock. The site has frontages to Port Sorell Road to the north-west, Bass Highway to the south-west and Thompsons Road to the east. The site has direct access to Port Sorell Road.

Additionally, access to Frankford Road is provided via a right of way through 6183 Frankford Road (folio of the register 145641/4) and there is an existing drainage easement parallel to the northern boundary of variable width (1.5m west and 3.0m east of the right of way access).

The site is in the Rural Zone and contains the following overlays:

• Bushfire-prone areas
• Airport obstacle limitation area (51.5m AHD)
• Electricity transmission corridor
• Priority vegetation area, and
• Waterway and coastal protection area.

The site adjoins the existing SAP area which applies to properties to the north, which are also in the Rural Zone. The existing SAP has an area of 16.3ha. The draft amendment proposes to expand the SAP area to include the site as Precinct D, which would increase the size of the SAP area to 30.17ha.

Surrounding land is in the Rural Zone, Agriculture Zone and Rural Living Zone, and is characterised by a combination of commercial, residential and agriculture land uses. Opposite the site (to the north west of the Port Sorell Road/Piping Lane junction) is the LAT-P4.0 Particular Purpose Zone - Piping Lane Business Park, which aims to provide for a mix of industrial and commercial activities.

Two representations were received. One was from the applicant, which proposed changes to the following clauses of the draft amendment:

• Clause LAT-S1.6.2 Precinct D - Use Area
• Clause LAT-S1.6.3 Stormwater Management within Precinct D
• Clause LAT-S1.6.4 Hours of Operation within Precinct D
• Clause LAT-S1.7.5 Landscape Buffering within Precinct D
• Clause LAT-S1.7.6 Stormwater Management within Precinct D

In its representation the applicant also provided comments on condition 3 of the draft permit.

The second representation raised concerns regarding traffic generated by future development allowable under the draft amendment and whether the site would be connected to reticulated services.

The planning authority advised that the draft amendment was referred to TasWater under sections 56S and 56O of the Water and Sewerage Industry Act 2008. TasWater did not provide a response.

Planning authority's response to the representations

The planning authority considered the representations at its meeting on 12 August 2024 and made the following resolution on the draft amendment and permit:

1. Endorsed as the Planning Authority report, pursuant to Section 40K of the Land Use Planning & Approvals Act 1993 relating to Amendment 2/2023 and Draft Permit LDA-063/2024;
2. Council delegate to the General Manager its powers and functions to:

a) modify the report submitted under Recommendation 1 if a request or a direction for further information is received from the Tasmanian Planning Commission; and > > b) represent the planning authority at hearings of the Tasmanian Planning Commission pursuant to Section 40L of the Land Use Planning & Approvals Act 1993.

The hearing was held at the Latrobe Council office at 170 Gilbert Street, Latrobe on 3 December 2024.

At the request of the parties, a reconvened hearing was held at the Commission's office at 144 Macquarie Street, Hobart on 8 August 2025.

Planning authority: Ms Jo Oliver, Consultant Town Planner

Applicant's experts: Mr Mark Walters, 6ty° Pty Ltd (Stormwater)

Mr Richard Burke, Traffic and Civil Services (Traffic)

Planning authority: Ms Jo Oliver, Consultant Town Planner

Applicant's experts: Mr Mark Walters, 6ty° Pty Ltd (Stormwater)

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 in considering the issues raised 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. Under section 32(4) of the Act, a LPS may only include a specific area plan 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. The applicant prepared a Planning Submission - Section 37(1) and 40T(1) Application, July 2023 by 6ty° (planning submission) in support of the draft amendment and permit. In this document, it considered that extending the SAP to include the site would provide significant economic benefit to the region. It further stated that:
   • the expansion of the SAP would assist with demand for warehouses in the eastern part of the region;
   • the site is adjacent to strategic transport networks, including the Tasmanian 26m B-double Network and Bass Highway; and
   • new provisions in the SAP would constrain the uses at the site to those that are dependent on the State Road network and proximity to the airport, port and railyard in Devonport.
2. In the planning authority's report supporting the draft amendment dated 11 June 2024 (supporting report), it agreed that the draft amendment would provide significant economic benefit for the region.
3. It stated that:

It is a well-established economic principal that industry is best served close to settlements, employment centres and arterial transport routes in order to draw potential employees and to reduce the transaction costs of freight movement. (p. 43)

4. At the hearing, it was noted that the planning authority considered the benefits of the draft amendment to be at a sub-regional level. Ms Jo Oliver, consultant planner for Latrobe Council, considered that this meets the section 32(4) criteria, as it relates to a municipal area.
5. Mr Ashley Brook from 6ty° also advised that the draft amendment is looking to satisfy demand for transport related industries. That is, uses that require large areas of land close to freight networks. It was considered that the SAP allows for this type of development.
6. At the hearing, the Commission queried whether the SAP should apply over the Rural Zone or an industrial zone, as the intent of the draft amendment appeared to be for industrial related uses that aren't necessarily required for rural activities.
7. Mr Brooks advised that qualifications on certain use classes, such as Bulky Goods Sales, would limit uses to those that support agricultural and rural activities.
8. At the reconvened hearing, Ms Oliver advised that the SAP is required because the site is un-serviced. Ms Oliver submitted this is unique and sets this area apart from other industrial areas. Ms Oliver emphasised the importance of managing stormwater and wastewater within the proposed Precinct as a basis for the planning authorities continued support for the amendment proceeding.

1. The Commission accepts the justification from the planning authority that a SAP is required for the site to cater for its unique characteristics. That is, historic industrial development on un-serviced land in a rural area with good access to road, airport, port and rail networks.
2. The Commission notes that the key SAP purpose statements relate to on-site stormwater and wastewater management systems to cater for industrial use and development.
3. The Commission finds that the draft amendment is consistent with section 32(4)(b) of the Act.

1. At the hearing, the plan purpose statements of the SAP were discussed. It was noted that some of the plan purpose statements do not further the section 32(4) justification provided by the applicant and planning authority. Furthermore, the SAP purpose statements were originally drafted to reflect the Rural Resource Zone of a previous planning scheme.
2. The Commission issued a direction to the planning authority and applicant requesting information on how the SAP purpose statements reflect the section 32(4) justification, how the objectives reflect the purpose statements and how the SAP standards further the stated objectives.
3. In a submission dated 23 June 2025, the planning authority, with support from the applicant, advised that the plan purpose statements have been modified to align with the provisions of the SAP. The planning authority stated that despite a desire to improve the SAP, there are limitations to the extent the SAP could be modified, as changes could have implications for the existing precincts subject to the SAP, with landowners not having been involved in the process to date. Therefore, suggested modifications are focussed on clarifying existing SAP purpose statements and including specific statements for Precinct D.
4. In its submission, the planning authority recommended the following modifications to the purpose statements:
   • to provide for limited opportunities for industrial use and development that is reliant on access to freight networks, a distance from sensitive use, or associated with uses in the SAP area
   • to provide for industrial use and development that require large operational areas
   • to provide for coordinated access, infrastructure, location of buildings and landscaping
   • to require on-site services, and
   • minimise land use conflict.

1. The Commission acknowledges that the plan purpose statements for the SAP were unusual, given it was originally drafted for the Rural Resource Zone of a previous scheme and was not subject to section 32(4) criteria.
2. The Commission considers that focussing the plan purpose statements on the matters unique to the site, such as the need for on-site wastewater and stormwater management, and the site's strategic location is required to support the section 32(4) justification above.
3. The Commission finds that the modified plan purpose statements provided by the planning authority on 23 June 2025 are appropriate for the intent of the SAP.

1. The draft amendment proposes to introduce new use standards for land in Precinct D relating to discretionary use, area of use, stormwater and wastewater management, hours of operation, and Frankford Road upgrades.
2. In the supporting report, the planning authority stated that the use standards for discretionary uses and area of use were required to ensure that new permissible uses at the site would not displace uses that would otherwise be located in existing industrial land at Latrobe and Devonport. It stated that without these use standards, there are no planning provisions that would confine the establishment of multiple, smaller tenancies of the same use class. There would also be no provisions relating to scale, that would distinguish the reliance of a use on the site for size or location.
3. In its submission, the planning authority suggested modifying clause LAT-S1.6.1 Discretionary use standards by removing ambiguous text from the objective and performance criteria. It considered that this better aligns the SAP with the Rural Zone and reiterates the intent for the SAP. It also suggested modifying the performance criteria relating to Precinct D, to describe in more detail the aspects that warrant a larger area for industrial use.
4. The planning authority advised that clause LAT-S1.6.2 Precinct D - Use Area sets a minimum standard of what is considered a large area in an industrial context. It stated that the standard relied on the definition of 'development area' in the State Planning Provisions (SPPs), which includes the extent of activities expected for use and development. It considered that including an operational relationship with another use, or uses, established in the Bellfield Industrial Specific Area Plan also provides clarity in what uses are considered appropriate to co-locate at the site.
5. In the supporting report, the planning authority considered that the use standards relating to wastewater and stormwater management are required because there is potential downstream impact from emissions caused by the range of uses allowable at the site. The use standards would require appropriate mitigation measures for all stormwater and wastewater discharge in Precinct D at the site.
6. In its submission, the planning authority advised that modifications to clause LAT-S1.6.3 Stormwater Management within Precinct D are proposed to clarify the objective, acceptable solution and performance criteria. It considered that linking the use standards to the stormwater and wastewater management plan required in the development standards provides a measurable standard for specific treatment types and devices as it will be listed in the plan.
7. The Commission queried why the planning authority included stormwater and wastewater management provisions in both the use and development standards, as usually these provisions are only related to development standards.
8. The planning authority stated that the reason for the apparent duplication of the provisions was necessary because there are some aspects of stormwater and wastewater quality and volume that is directly associated with use, not development. At the hearing, Ms Oliver provided an example of a use that requires the wash down of machinery, which may use detergents and chemicals. Ms Oliver submitted that the use standards would ensure that adequate wastewater treatment is applied before the water containing the detergents and chemicals enters the waterways.
9. In the supporting report, the planning authority stated that the use standards for hours of operation are required to preserve the amenity of the dwellings on the opposite side of Thompsons Road, which is adjacent to Precinct D. The planning authority advised that the 50m amenity buffer was drawn from the standards in the Light Industrial Zone of the SPPs.
10. In its submission, the planning authority advised that a standard for the upgrade of Frankford Road was included following discussions at the hearing which highlighted the need for the road to be upgraded. The planning authority stated that the standard will ensure that upgrades to Frankford Road are completed before the commencement of any new use, excluding Utilities, in Precinct D.
11. The applicant advised in an email dated 23 June 2025 that it agrees with the matters raised in the planning authority's submission mentioned above.

1. The Commission finds that the use standards relating to the area of land occupied by each use is appropriate and links the SAP provisions to the justification provided by the applicant under section 32(4) of the Act.
2. The Commission notes that use standards relating to stormwater and wastewater management are unusual. In this instance, the Commission is satisfied with the justification provided by the planning authority for including the use standards in the SAP. This is due to the site being un-serviced with stormwater and wastewater infrastructure. The Commission notes that generally, industrial use would be located on serviced land where there are adequate treatments for stormwater and wastewater through physical infrastructure. The Commission finds that including stormwater and wastewater management use standards is appropriate.
3. The Commission considers that the inclusion of use standards relating to upgrades to Frankford Road are required, as it was stated at the hearing that the upgrades must occur to facilitate traffic increase caused by future use at the site.
4. The Commission finds that the use standards are appropriate for the site and further the plan purposes statements of the SAP.

1. The draft amendment proposes to introduce new development standards for land in Precinct D relating to vehicle access, landscape buffering, stormwater and wastewater management, and the development plan. Modifications specific to Precinct D were also made to the existing development standards.
2. In the application report, the applicant stated that the provisions for vehicle access were proposed as the future development of the site is intending to be divided through a strata scheme. It stated that:

The SAP requires vehicular access to be from Frankford Road, and in any event there would be significant constraints in obtaining access for industrial development from Port Sorell Road, Thompsons Road or the Bass Highway. (p. 17)

3. The applicant engaged Traffic and Civil Services to complete a Traffic Impact Assessment, January 2022 (TIA) for the site.
4. The TIA advised that the local transport system includes the Bass Highway, Port Sorell Road and Frankford Road, which are all state roads, and Thompsons Road which is a council road.
5. A private road connects the site to Frankford Road. This road forms part of a seven lot strata title property located just north of the site and within the SAP. The road is designed for 26m B-double access.
6. The TIA identified that access via the private road would be the best option for access. This is predominantly due to sight lines. Two other options are available but unlikely to be viable. These include access to Thompsons Road, which is too narrow for heavy vehicles, or Port Sorell Road, which is too steep for the safe access of heavy vehicles.
7. The TIA further identified that upgrades to the Frankford Road/Port Sorell Road junction area are required to facilitate the potential traffic increase caused by use facilitated by the draft amendment.
8. At the hearing, the upgrades to the junction and private road were discussed with parties. Mr Richard Burk of Traffic and Civil Services advised that the junction is currently substandard and should contain a turning lane.
9. The Commission queried what would trigger the road upgrades, as the SAP does not include any provisions relating to this requirement. Rather, future development applications would be assessed against the Parking and Sustainable Transport Code, which contains provisions for traffic generation from each site. If each use is under the threshold, it appears that no upgrades would be required under the SPPs.
10. Mr Burk advised that he was unsure how the costs of upgrading the junction would be equitably distributed and what mechanisms are available to require these upgrades.
11. Ms Oliver advised that there are no provisions in the SPPs to require these upgrades if the traffic generation threshold is not exceeded.
12. After the hearing the Commission issued a direction to the planning authority and applicant to provide a submission on the external road upgrades. Particularly, it requested details on the mechanisms (if any) to ensure roads are upgraded for the anticipated future use and development intensity that the SAP allows for. Additionally, details were requested on who will be responsible for the works, trigger points and how the upgrades will be funded.
13. In its submission, the planning authority advised that including a standard requiring the upgrade to Frankford Road in the SAP ensures that the upgrades will be completed prior to additional use operating at the site. The planning authority advised that it is the landowner or developer's responsibility to fund the road and access upgrades.
14. There is an existing landscape buffer provision in the SAP at clause LAT-S1.8.1 A3.2, that applies to applications for subdivision. The applicant advised that the insertion of a new development standard for landscaping buffers was included because the existing standards are unlikely to apply to the site, as the intension was to create strata titles through a strata scheme, rather than a subdivision.
15. In its supporting report, the planning authority considered that the development standards relating to stormwater and wastewater management are required as the site is not serviced by reticulated stormwater and wastewater infrastructure, and surface water drains downstream into a watercourse.
16. At the hearing, the Commission noted that the stormwater and wastewater management provisions did not establish quantifiable parameters for what is an acceptable measure for stormwater and wastewater management.
17. In its submission, the planning authority advised that 'there is not an alternate way of achieving the required detention through performance criteria, as the detention requirement is absolute' (p.7). It advised that it is only the distribution of detention that is unknown, which should not be a trigger for discretionary assessment as it may weaken stormwater management. Nevertheless, modifications are proposed to the standard to provide clearer guidance in detailing the components to be included in the stormwater and wastewater management plan.
18. The modified provision includes two measurable aspects, including:
    • the requirement for a stormwater and wastewater management plan, that requires approval from the stormwater authority, and
    • the technical components to be included in the stormwater and wastewater management plan are changed to be either numerically measurable and calculable or are items to be installed.
19. The development standards were discussed at the hearing and a direction letter was sent to parties requesting consideration of including a Precinct D development plan in the SAP with corresponding objectives, acceptable solutions and performance criteria.
20. In its submission, the planning authority provided a clause and figure relating to a development plan for the SAP. The development plan provides a spatial representation of what is intended for Precinct D, including the linear detention basin, vehicle access, setbacks, amenity and landscape buffers, and the electricity transmission corridor.

1. The Commission is satisfied with the justification provided by the planning authority and applicant for the inclusion of the development standards.
2. Particularly, the Commission acknowledges that vehicle access is required to the site from an existing access between Precincts A and C. The Commission finds that including vehicle access standards in the SAP is an appropriate way to regulate specific access requirements for the reasons identified by the planning authority.
3. The Commission further notes that development standards for stormwater and wastewater management are required to ensure adequate treatment is provided on site. The Commission finds that the development standards achieve this.
4. The Commission considers that the requirements relating to a landscape buffer should also apply to the Utilities use class as the works may have visual impacts when viewed from surrounding roads.
5. The Commission finds that the development standards further the clause objectives and plan purpose statements, and the overall intent of the SAP.
6. The Commission appreciates the planning authority and applicant's openness to include a development plan in the SAP. This has enabled the key spatial elements of the SAP to be shown visually, aiding the interpretation of the written elements of the SAP.

1. The relevant regional strategy is the Cradle Coast Regional Land Use Strategy, 2010-2030 (regional strategy).
2. In its planning report, 6ty° considered that the draft amendment is consistent with the regional strategy for the reasons detailed below.
3. 6ty° considered that the draft amendment provides opportunities for transport, warehousing and related uses in the region, which is intended for export orientated industries. It stated that the site characteristics are suitable for providing employment land. These characteristics include:
   • the topography, which has a gentle fall;
   • the location, which is near the State freight road network, Devonport Airport, the Port and railyard;
   • the feeder and private roads accessible to the site, which accommodate 26m B-double vehicles;
   • the proximity to the Devonport and Latrobe settlement areas;
   • no native vegetation; and
   • separation from adjacent agricultural land.
4. 6ty° stated that the draft amendment is consistent with the agricultural production policies as the draft amendment is intended to provide use and development opportunities that support agricultural production, such as rural supplies.
5. It further considered that the site is small and isolated from surrounding agricultural land, making the agricultural potential of the site limited. It advised that the site is not a significant local or regional agricultural estate and the loss of this land for agricultural activities is minor. Further justification on the agricultural viability of the site is discussed under State Policies.
6. For the manufacturing and processing policies of the regional strategy, 6ty° claimed that:

The relatively targeted range of uses proposed ensure that the subject site would not directly compete with future industrial development within the identified regionally significant precinct... (p. 36)

7. This was considered important to ensure that manufacturing is clustered together in locations that have an advantage for industry. It is also directly related to the road transport policies. 6ty° stated that the draft amendment would expand an existing industrial area that has access to major freight routes. It considered that this is preferable over sites that have limited access.
8. In the supporting report, the planning authority agreed with the statements from 6ty° about the policies relating to economic activity and jobs. In addition to this, the planning authority considered that the draft amendment is consistent with policies relating to water management, land, and integrated land use and infrastructure planning. It made the following comments:
   • the inclusion of a provision for stormwater in Precinct D would ensure appropriate management for the quantity and quality of stormwater entering the downstream watercourse;
   • a landscape buffer along the Bass Highway frontage provides an opportunity for reusing wastewater and stormwater;
   • the draft amendment would allow for the best economic use of a highly modified site. This also consolidates economic activity in an area close to a major freight network;
   • the draft amendment would not result in a 'regional level activity', as the economic extent does not impact the whole region;
   • the land does not have agricultural values that are significant to the region; and
   • the draft amendment restricts uses to ensure that uses at the site are those reliant on the location of the site.
9. In addition to these policies, section 5.2 of the regional strategy focuses on building an efficient and effective road, rail, air and sea transport system to move freight for economic activity.
10. The site is strategically located adjacent to the Bass Highway, which is a Category 1 Trunk Route under the Tasmanian State Road Hierarchy 2006. The site has access to this highway via Port Sorell Road, which is a Category 4 Feeder Road. This supports uses that require access to freight networks.

1. The Commission is satisfied with the justification provided by the applicant and planning authority.
2. The Commission finds that the draft amendment is, as far as practicable, consistent with the regional strategy.

1. The relevant strategic plan is the Latrobe Council Strategic Plan 2020-2030 (strategic plan).
2. In the planning report, 6ty° considered that the draft amendment has regard to the community and economic development, infrastructure and assets, and development and regulatory objectives of the strategic plan for the following reasons:
   • the draft amendment would provide opportunities for economic development by expanding an existing industrial area
   • the upgraded drainage infrastructure along the northern boundary of the site has been constructed to accommodate stormwater runoff from future development at the site, and
   • expanding the SAP is consistent with the regional strategy, state policies and other requirements of the Act.
3. In the supporting report, the planning authority considered that the draft amendment meets the objectives of the strategic plan. This is primarily due to the lack of industrial land available in the area identified by 6ty°.
4. The planning authority considered that the draft amendment has regard to the following objectives and strategies of the strategic plan:
   • support business growth and development
   • emphasise the municipality's strategic locational advantages, and
   • support a resilient local economy.
5. The planning authority states in its supporting report that:

The growth of an established precinct adjacent to a major arterial freight route, to meet the specific demands for larger land areas serving particular industry sectors, directly supports the objective and strategies of the Strategic Plan (p. 59)

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

State Policy on the Protection of Agricultural Land 2009

1. The site is included in the agricultural land mapping, which means the State Policy on the Protection of Agricultural Land 2009 (PAL Policy) applies.
2. The applicant engaged RMPC Pty Ltd to prepare an agricultural assessment of the site. RMPC completed a site visit on 9 December 2020.
3. The key findings of the agricultural assessment identified that the site is limited by isolation, as it is not adjacent to other agricultural land and there is no irrigation available at the site. The report stated that it is highly unlikely that the site would be developed for a standalone commercial agricultural enterprise or be farmed in conjunction with other agricultural land.
4. At the hearing, Mr Michael Tempest of RMCG, considered that the site is classified as 10.3ha of Class 3 land, 2.8ha of Class 5 land, and just under 1ha of land which is unmapped. Mr Tempest advised that there is just under 10ha of land that could be used for agricultural activities, but this is restricted due to the new concrete batching plant at the site. The agricultural uses likely to occur at the site would be limited to dry land grazing or dry land cropping, such as wheat crops. In summary, Mr Tempest advised that the site contains very restricted agricultural land, which has capacity for hobby scale, dry land activities.
5. At the hearing, the Commission asked the applicant and planning authority how the draft amendment is consistent with Principle 9 of the PAL Policy. Ms Oliver and Mr Brook both advised that they considered Principle 9 to not apply. However, they suggested that Resource Development could be inserted in the use table to ensure the use is not prohibited.
6. After the hearing, the Commission requested a submission from the applicant and planning authority on Principle 9 of the PAL Policy.
7. In its submission, the planning authority suggested that the SAP be modified to include Resource Development as a permitted use.

1. In its supporting report, the planning authority stated that:

... the site does drain directly to a watercourse that traverses a number of agricultural properties before merging with Pardoe Creek, which discharges to Pardoe Beach on the northern coast (p. 44).

2. As the site drains directly into a watercourse, the State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997 (Water Quality Policy) applies to the site.
3. In the planning report, 6ty° stated that the provisions of the Water Quality Policy are reflected in the Natural Assets Code of the SPPs. It considered that future development and works would be assessed against this code, and therefore the draft amendment is consistent with the Water Quality Policy.
4. In the supporting report, the planning authority considered that surface water runoff associated with future development can be managed through conditions on any planning permit granted, in accordance with section 6.11.2 of the SPPs. Furthermore, it stated that including SAP provisions relating to the discharge of water was prudent to set appropriate parameters for future development. It concluded by stating that there are no circumstances where future development at the site could not manage surface water quality.
5. The site is not connected to public stormwater or wastewater infrastructure. As such, the applicant engaged Geoton Pty Ltd to prepare an on-site wastewater management assessment, and 6ty° to prepare a stormwater review.
6. In its planning report, 6ty° proposed stormwater management provisions for Precinct D within the SAP. However, prior to certifying the draft amendment, the planning authority modified the stormwater management provisions and included provisions relating to wastewater to mitigate impacts on the watercourse.
7. At the hearing, Mr Mark Walters of 6ty° advised that the whole area has shallow and gently flowing paths. Mr Walters advised that Thompsons Road is a raised causeway, which results in the whole site acting as an unintended retention basin. Stormwater infrastructure has since been installed at the site to mitigate this issue.
8. Mr Walters further advised that when assessing stormwater that flows into natural watercourses, the quality rather than quantity is important. For example, a land use that incorporates oil may result in stormwater requiring treatment prior to being discharged into the watercourse.
9. The Commission raised concerns that the acceptable solution in the SAP is not a quantifiable provision. Discussions at the hearing also indicated that it is not just stormwater at the site that requires assessment. Rather, it's about the drainage water quality.
10. At the hearing, Ms Anne Foster from Geoton Pty Ltd advised that due to the nearby watercourse, wastewater systems adjacent to the drainage line must be setback at least 29m.
11. Ms Foster advised that an area of 400m² would be required on each lot to accommodate a suitable wastewater system, which must be free of development and hardstands.
12. At the hearing the Commission queried whether water coming from industrial uses would also be treated through the wastewater treatment system. Mr Walters advised that industrial water would be treated separately through a different process that recycles the water. That is, it would not form part of the wastewater treatment system or be discharged directly to the drainage line.
13. After the hearing, the Commission requested a submission from the planning authority and applicant on the provisions relating to stormwater and wastewater in the SAP and whether any changes are required.
14. In its submission, the planning authority provided modified standards for stormwater and wastewater management, as discussed under the use standards and development standards section.

1. The site is more than 1km from a coastal zone. Therefore, the State Coastal Policy 1996 does not apply.

1. The Commission disagrees with the applicant and planning authority's assessment of the PAL Policy, which focussed primarily on the agricultural assessment prepared for the site rather than the principles of the policy.
2. The Commission notes that part of the site is currently used for low scale agricultural activities and as certified, the SAP would make this a prohibited use.
3. The Commission accepts the modified SAP that includes Resource Development in the use table would satisfy this element of the policy.
4. The Commission is satisfied with the justification provided from the applicant and planning authority on the Water Quality Policy. The Commission finds that the provisions included in the SAP are appropriate for mitigating surface water at the site.
5. The Commission finds that the draft amendment is consistent with the PAL Policy and Water Quality Policy. The Commission finds that no other state policies apply to the site.

Resource Management and Planning System Objectives

1. In its planning report, 6ty° considered that the draft amendment furthers the objectives of the Act. It stated that the draft amendment extends an existing SAP which allows for alternate economic use of agricultural land.
2. In its supporting report, the planning authority considered that the site was previously cleared for agricultural use, and therefore does not contribute to natural environmental value. However, as the site drains into a watercourse, the planning authority considered that the SAP needs to include adequate provisions for stormwater management to ensure no negative impacts are caused to environmental values downstream of the site.
3. It further considered that the draft amendment represents fair, orderly and sustainable use and development as it supports the freight and logistics sector. To assist with this, clause LAT-S1.6.1 includes an objective for Precinct D, which ensures that use and development must rely on the strategic attributes of land size or location. The planning authority advised that this objective is required to ensure certain uses allowable under the SAP are reliant on the locality, which promotes the fair, orderly and sustainable use of industrial zoned land.
4. Part 2(c) of the Objectives states:

To ensure that the effects on the environment are considered and provide for explicit consideration of social and economic effects when decisions are made about the use and development of land; and ...

5. In its supporting report, the planning authority stated that the economic rationale for the draft amendment was formed as part of the supply and demand of industrial land in the Latrobe municipality.
6. At the hearing, the Commission asked the planning authority whether this area is intended for rural related or industrial related activities, as it is unclear from the underlying zone and the SAP purpose.
7. In its submission, the planning authority advised that the modified plan purpose statements provide clarity in the SAP, in that it is for limited industrial use that is reliant on the location of the site.

1. The Commission is satisfied with the justification provided at the applicant and planning authority.
2. 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 notes that the drafting of the SAP is unusual as it was drafted for the Rural Resource Zone of a previous scheme and has been modified to more successfully integrate with the Rural Zone of the SPPs.
3. The Commission finds that modifications are required to the SAP to align with the SPPs, be consistent with drafting standards, clarify various matters and provide clear direction for applicants and assessing officers. The Commission finds that as these modifications do not change the intent of the SAP or the existing use and development rights of the established Precincts A, B and C, they do not constitute a substantial modification.

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

1. Under section 42A of the Act, the Commission must consider the permit and, under section 42B, review the planning authority's decision as reported under section 42.

1. At the hearing, the Commission asked parties what use class applies to the proposed works. Ms Oliver considered that the works are minor utilities, which is a No Permit Required use in the Rural Zone use table. Mr Brooks considered the use class to be that relating to the future industrial use of the site, which is prohibited in the Rural Zone.
2. The Commission has considered the two opinions from the planning authority and applicant and agrees with the planning authority that the permit could be considered under the Utilities use class. This use class can be assessed through the exemptions and Rural Zone provisions of the SPPs without an amendment to the planning scheme.
3. The Commission considers that the works are therefore not prohibited, and approval of the permit application is not dependent on approval of the draft amendment as required by section 40T of the Act.

1. It is determined that the permit cannot be considered by the Commission under section 42A of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 as it is not a request to which section 40T(1) relates.

Modified amendment 2/2024 to the Tasmanian Planning Scheme - Latrobe

1. Apply the Bellfield Industrial Specific Area Plan overlay to 16 Port Sorell Road, Latrobe, as shown below.

1. Delete the text for LAT-S1.0 Bellfield Industrial Specific Area Plan and replace with the following text.

LAT-S1.0 Bellfield Industrial Specific Area Plan

The purpose of the Bellfield Industrial Specific Area Plan is:

LAT-S1.1.1 To provide limited opportunities for industrial use and development in a rural location that:

(a) relies upon the site's locational advantage in proximity to the State Highway and rail networks and the Devonport air and seaports; or

(b) for Precinct D:

(i) does not compromise adjoining and nearby sensitive uses; or

(ii) may capitalise on co-location and association with uses in the Bellfield SAP precincts.

LAT-S1.1.2 To provide for industrial use and development in Precinct D that requires larger operational areas due to the nature and scale of the use.

LAT-S1.1.3 That sites are only accessed from a constructed access to Frankford Road. In Precinct D, to provide for access, location of buildings, landscaped visual buffers and infrastructure in accordance with the Bellfield Development Plan.

LAT-S1.1.4 In Precinct D ensure that on-site management of stormwater drainage and wastewater for new development areas protects the downstream environment.

LAT-S1.1.5 Use and development does not adversely impact views from the State road network or adjacent land.

LAT-S1.2.1 The specific area plan applies to the area of land designated as Bellfield Industrial Specific Area Plan on the overlay maps and in Figure LAT-S1.1.

LAT-S1.2.2 In the area of land this plan applies to, the provisions of the specific area plan are in substitution for, and are in addition to, the provisions of the Rural Zone, as specified in the relevant provision.

This clause is not used in this specific area plan.

LAT-S1.4.1 In this specific area plan, unless the contrary intention appears:

This clause is in substation for Rural Zone - Clause 20.2 Use Table.

(a) in Precinct B, Precinct C or Precinct D; and

(b) for wholesale of building materials, construction aggregates, garden and landscape materials or rural supplies.

(a) not Permitted; and

(b) in Precinct B or Precinct D.

This clause is in substitution for Rural Zone - clause 20.3.1 Discretionary Use A2 and P2.

(a) in Precincts A, B and C is to be without competition, displacement, conflict or interference from other use within the rural zone.

(b) in Precinct D:

(i) are appropriate for the rural location and rely upon proximity to the State Highway and Devonport air and sea ports;

(ii) do not confine or restrain the operation of uses on adjacent properties; and

(iii) require a larger area for industrial use and development, or relies on an operational relationship with an established use or requires a location distant from sensitive use.

(a) be appropriate for the location, having regard to:

(i) nature, scale, and intensity of the use;

(ii) operational characteristics;

(iii) likely impact of traffic composition, volume, and frequency on operation and safety of the road network;

(iv) measures to minimise likely adverse impact on existing and potential:

1. manufacturing, processing, service, storage, and transport activities on land within the boundaries of the Bellfield Industrial Specific Area Plan; and
2. use of land beyond the boundaries of the Bellfield Industrial Specific Area Plan; and

(b) in Precinct D, rely on:

(i) a larger area of land to accommodate:

1. product storage and display;
2. loading and unloading;
3. potential emissions, including any buffers to emissions, or
4. manoeuvrability of large/heavy vehicles; or

(ii) support another use, or uses, established in the Bellfield Industrial Specific Area Plan; or

(iii) a location distant from sensitive uses.

This clause is in addition to Rural Zone - clause 20.3 Use Standards.

That each use of land within Precinct D, excluding Resource Development, relies on larger development areas, relies on locational advantages, or supports other uses in the Bellfield Industrial Specific Area Plan.

Development area in Precinct D, excluding minor utilities and Resource Development, is not less than 5000m².

A use in Precinct D must require a development area that is appropriate for the use, having regard to:

(a) operational characteristics, nature and scale of the use, and the need to locate in close proximity to primary freight routes;

(b) whether the use supports another use, or uses, established in the Bellfield Industrial Specific Area Plan; or

(c) the need for a location distant from sensitive uses.

LAT-S1.6.3 Stormwater and wastewater management within Precinct D

This clause is in addition to Rural Zone - clause 20.3 Use Standards.

Stormwater, wastewater and drainage runoff is to be managed to provide for appropriate quality of water discharged from the site into receiving watercourses.

A use in Precinct D must be accompanied by a stormwater and wastewater management plan approved by the planning authority.

The stormwater and wastewater treatment system is consistent with the approved plan.

That uses incorporate treatment systems and devices to manage stormwater runoff and drainage water quality, including wastewater, for sediment and pollutants relevant to the specific use.

Use must manage the treatment of stormwater, drainage and wastewater particular to the use having regard to:

(a) the type and quantity of emissions;

(b) the degree of exposure to weather;

(c) the type of treatment;

(d) processes for waste storage and removal; and

(e) management processes if utilising land outside of the development area.

This clause is in addition to Rural Zone - clause 20.3 Use Standards.

That uses within Precinct D do not cause an unreasonable loss of amenity to existing residential uses.

Hours of operation of a use in Precinct D, excluding minor utilities, within the amenity buffer measured 50m from adjacent lots containing residential uses, shown in Figure LAT-S1.2, 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 of a use in Precinct D, excluding minor utilities, must not cause an unreasonable loss of amenity to residential use, having regard to:

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

(b) noise, lighting or other emissions.

This clause is in addition to Rural Zone - clause 20.3 Use Standards.

To require upgrades to Frankford Road and the vehicle crossing to be undertaken prior to the commencement of a use within Precinct D.

A use within Precinct D, excluding minor utilities and Resource Development, must be:

(a) accessed from Frankford Road; and

(b) the access and the vehicle crossing works must have been completed generally in accordance with Figure LAT-S1.3 and Figure LAT-S1.4; or

(c) The upgrades to Frankford Road and the vehicle crossing, generally accordance with Figure LAT-S1.3 and Figure LAT-S1.4, must be completed to the satisfaction of the road authority prior to the commencement of the use.

A use within Precinct D, excluding minor utilities, must be subsequent to upgrades to Frankford Road and the vehicle crossing, and must minimise any adverse effects on the road and vehicle crossing, having regard to:

(a) any increase in traffic caused by the use;

(b) the nature of the traffic generated by the use;

(c) the nature of the road;

(d) traffic interactions at the vehicle crossing;

(e) any traffic impact assessment; and

(f) any advice received from the road authority.

LAT-S1.7 Development Standards for Buildings and Works

This clause is in addition to Rural Zone - clause 20.4 Development Standards for Buildings and Works.

(a) vehicular circulation and access in Precinct D is suitable for its intended purpose;

(b) an appropriate setback of buildings to roads and adjoining land; and

(c) includes suitable landscape buffering and screening along Precinct D frontages.

Vehicular access to and from land within Precinct D must be provided by means of an extension of the existing right of way at a minimum of 9m width, located within Precinct A.

The private access way within Precinct D is in accordance with:

(a) Figure LAT-S1.2 Development Plan; or

(b) an alignment that includes:

(i) a minimum width of 8m; and

(ii) a turning circle with a minimum outer diameter of 30m for a turning circle on a dead-end section.

Each individual development area with Precinct D, excluding for minor utilities, must abut the private access way for a minimum width of 10m.

Each individual development area within Precinct D, excluding minor utilities, must connect with the private access way to provide convenient, safe and efficient vehicular access, having regard to the ability for vehicles to manoeuvre on-site.

The walls of a building must be in accordance with the setbacks identified in Figure LAT-S1.2.

The walls of a building must be sited having regard to:

(a) prevailing setbacks of existing and approved buildings;

(b) separation between the road and the building to provide a sufficient buffer or screen the site from a road; and

(c) include measures to screen and attenuate visual impact of the site to view from a road and from land outside the boundaries of the land to which the Bellfield Industrial Specific Area Plan applies.

In Precinct D, a 7.5m wide landscape buffer in accordance with Figure LAT-S1.2 must:

(a) be planted in its entirety, concurrent with the establishment of a development area;

(b) be landscaped with vegetation to screen views into the site from the adjacent road; and

(c) achieve a height of not less than 6 metres, except for that part of the buffer that is within the Electricity Transmission Corridor - Inner Protection Area, where the height must not be less than 3 metres.

This clause is in substitution for Rural Zone - clause 20.4.1 Building height, and clause 20.4.2 Setbacks A1 and P1.

That development has minimal visual impact when viewed from the road network beyond the boundaries of the Bellfield Industrial Specific Area Plan.

The visual impact of building height is minimised, having regard to:

(a) the degree of screening provided by the landscape buffer shown in Figure LAT-S1.2 or any existing or additional vegetation screening;

(b) the degree to which development impacts the skyline;

(c) mitigation provided through materials and finishes;

(d) topography; and

(e) the degree to which the development integrates with other buildings within the Bellfield Industrial Specific Area Plan.

Site coverage of a development area must be not more than 50%.

Electricity reticulation and site connections must be installed underground.

It must be impractical or unreasonable to install electricity reticulation and site connections underground.

External materials other than natural stone, earth, timber or glass must be finished in 1 or more of the following colours as defined in Australian Standard AS 2700 - 1996, Colour Standards for General Purposes:

(a) B53 Dark Blue Grey;

(b) G63 Deep Bronze Green;

(c) N65 Graphite Grey;

(d) N52 Mid Grey;

(e) N54 Basalt;

(f) Y61 Black Olive;

(g) G15 Rain Forest Green; or

(h) N64 Dark Grey.

External colours must complement the surrounding environment.

This clause is in addition to Rural Zone - clause 20.4 Development Standards for Buildings and Works.

External lighting is not to cause loss of amenity to road users, the Devonport airport, or of a use on adjacent land.

External lighting must be hooded and directed so as not to cause:

(a) overspill onto adjacent land or onto Port Sorell Road, Bass Highway or Frankford Road; and

(b) interference to air safety at Devonport Airport.

LAT-S1.7.4 Stormwater and wastewater management within Precinct D

This clause is in addition to Rural Zone - clause 20.4 Development Standards for Buildings and Works.

(a) prevent nuisance downstream of the discharge point; and

(b) manage water quality to protect the downstream environment.

A Stormwater and Wastewater Management Plan for the full extent of Precinct D, is prepared by a suitably qualified person and approved by the planning authority, that provides for:

(a) on-site detention of stormwater from development meeting the following parameters:

(i) the discharge rate is no greater than the pre-development flow rate for events between the 20% and the 1% AEP storm event; and

(ii) all development areas are serviced by:

1. a shared private system consisting of a linear detention basin as shown in Figure LAT-S1.2 and pipe network, catering for each development area being developed up to 85% coverage of the land by buildings and hardstands; or
2. a combination of a shared private system and detention within individual development areas to a total 85% coverage of the land by buildings and hardstands;

(b) treatment systems and devices to manage stormwater runoff and drainage water quality, including wastewater, for sediment and specified pollutants anticipated for the range of uses, prior to discharge from the overall site, and includes:

(i) gully/sediment traps;

(ii) triple interceptors;

(iii) proprietary interceptors for fuel and oil;

(iv) proprietary interceptors for detergents;

(v) on-site wastewater treatment confined to each development area; and

(c) ongoing management and maintenance of on-site stormwater and water quality controls.

Development in Precinct D is consistent with the approved Stormwater and Wastewater Management Plan for:

(a) shared, or combined shared and development specific stormwater detention; or

(b) where the area of building and hardstand for an individual development is less than the approved Stormwater Management Plan, stormwater detention storage is provided so that the discharge rate from the development area is no greater than the pre-development flow rate for events between the 20% and the 1% AEP storm event; and

(c) treatment systems and devices for management of sediment and pollutants.

Development in Precinct D that is not consistent with the approved Stormwater and Wastewater Management Plan must independently manage and dispose of stormwater runoff through treatment systems and devices incorporated into the development area, designed by a suitably qualified person, that provides for:

(a) additional stormwater detention storage so that the discharge rate from the development area is no greater than the pre-development flow rate for events between the 20% and the 1% AEP storm event; and

(b) appropriate surface drainage to prevent nuisance on adjoining development areas.

Within Precinct D treatment systems and devices are incorporated into the development area to manage the quality of stormwater, wastewater and drainage runoff quality for pollutants relevant to the specific use, prior to discharge to the private stormwater pipe network or surface drainage, to mitigate adverse downstream environmental impacts.

This clause is in substitution for Rural Zone - clause 20.5.1 Lot design.

The minimum properties of each lot, or a lot proposed in a plan of subdivision are to:

(a) provide a suitable development area for the intended use; and

(b) provide access from a road.

Each lot, or a lot proposed in a plan of subdivision, must have an area of not less than 5000m².

Each lot, or a lot proposed in a plan of subdivision, must:

(a) provide a landscape buffer area with a width of not less than 7.5m along a frontage; and

(b) provide a landscape buffer area with a width of not less than 10m along any boundary to land to which the Bellfield Industrial Specific Area Plan does not apply.

The landscape buffer area must be landscaped and treated to assist screening of development to view from a road or from land to which the Bellfield Industrial Specific Area Plan does not apply by retention, replacement, or provision of trees or plantings of a type consistent with the established vegetation character of adjacent land.

This clause is not used in this specific area plan.

Figure LAT-S1.1 Bellfield Industrial Specific Area Plan