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.

The draft amendment proposes to rezone part of 30 Merino Street, Kings Meadows from the Light Industrial Zone to the Low Density Residential Zone. Additionally, the amendment proposes to apply the Natural Assets Code - priority vegetation overlay to some of the site.

The subject site is an approximately 3.9ha area of land in the Light Industrial Zone on the western side of 30 Merino Street, Kings Meadows. The property is split into three parts: the Light Industrial Zone (3.9ha) to the west, the Low Density Residential Zone (5.65ha) in the central part of the subject site, and the Light Industrial Zone (1.3ha) in the northeast corner.

The property has a frontage to Kings Meadows Link. Connector Park Drive, Ridgewood Lane and Merino Street all terminate at the property boundaries. The Kings Meadows Link frontage of the subject site is within the Southern Gateway Specific Area Plan (SAP).

The Kings Meadows Rivulet runs through part of the property and the property contains areas of remnant native vegetation. There are areas of substantial slope on the site, and the Landslip Hazard Code applies to the western side of the property.

The entire property is subject to the Safeguarding of Airports Code obstacle limitation area overlay and the Bushfire-Prone Areas Code. The Natural Assets - waterway and coastal protection area overlay applies to the buffer area around the Kings Meadows Rivulet and the Natural Assets Code - priority vegetation overlay applies to some of the land within the Low Density Residential Zone.

The Attenuation Code may apply based on the uses of the adjoining Light Industrial Zone.

The surrounding area is in the Light Industrial Zone to the east, Low Density Residential Zone to the north and west and General Residential Zone on the other side of Kings Meadows Link road to the south.

In the representations received the following issues were raised:

• Condition approvals to fix the rivulet which was overgrown
• Impact on amenity of dwellings in Ridgewood Lane
• Flora and fauna affected on the site
• Flora and fauna assessment is out of date
• Change of zone detrimental to adjoining businesses
• Lack of consultation with industry
• Planning authority should consider why split zoning was applied initially
• Does not meet scenic protection provisions
• Access provisions do not meet planning requirements

The draft amendment was readvertised from 19 December 2024 to 28 January 2025 because of a shortfall in the period it was exhibited initially.

Two further representations were received which were accepted as one by the planning authority as the representors were co-owners at the same address. This representor also provided a representation during the initial exhibition period, and this representation was identical to the previous one.

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 recommended no changes to the draft amendment.

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

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

(b) is in accordance with section 32; and

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

(d) is consistent with each State policy; and

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

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

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

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

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

1. The planning authority report dated 8 August 2024 submitted that the proposed amendment was consistent with section 34(2) of the Act.
2. Where relevant, these criteria are discussed in further detail below.

Application of the Low Density Residential Zone

1. In its supporting report dated 8 August 2024 the planning authority submitted the application of the Low Density Residential Zone was appropriate as it would allow the currently split-zoned site to be fully developed for low density residential purposes, providing for an expansion of the residential land on the subject site.
2. At the hearing, the planning authority submitted that the site had been identified in the Launceston Residential Strategy 2009-2029. The planning authority submitted it expected development would be large lots based on the site constraints which included areas of steep slope and servicing limitations.
3. At the hearing, the planning authority submitted that there was an error included on page 40 in the supporting report dated 8 August 2024 and that there is an existing 100m attenuation distance in operation.
4. The planning authority further submitted it expected setbacks of new development, if the amendment was approved, would be determined by factors such as the existing SAP scenic protections and attenuation requirements, which would be determined at the time a planning application was made.
5. The Commission provided directions following the hearing to the planning authority dated 17 April 2025. Post hearing submissions were required on the following:
   • the impact of the Southern Gateway Specific Area Plan (SAP) on the implementation of low density residential development on the subject site
   • interface to the west, including how the interface to industrial land to the west might be managed in future
   • access, including how vehicle access to the land was achievable given the slope of land.
6. The intention of the direction was to ensure the future development of the land for low density residential purposes was reasonably achievable if the amendment was approved. This reflected the various constraints of the subject site and the potential complexity of these being satisfactorily resolved, if the amendment was approved.
7. The Commission notes that the draft amendment does not include an application for a permit to subdivide the site.
8. In response to the direction, the planning authority provided a submission dated 20 May 2025. The Commission provided a direction letter dated 30 May 2025 requesting further details in response to several items in the original post-hearing direction. Further information requested was for a more detailed consideration of the SAP controls and the interface to the west.
9. On 7 November 2025, the planning authority provided a submission which included a Concept Plan by Pitt and Sherry on behalf of the landowners dated 13 October 2025.The Concept Plan comprised a 7 lot subdivision of various lot sizes, the minimum 5,203m2 and the maximum 16,312m2. The plan showed building envelopes, a fire trail/future road, and a subdivision road adjoining Merino Street with a maximum grade of 10%.
10. The planning authority in its submission stated (in part):

'This design achieves a balance between engineering feasibility, environmental protection, and landscape integration, consistent with the performance criteria for subdivision design in the Tasmanian Planning Scheme. Furthermore, each lot is of sufficient size and depth to ensure appropriate attenuation buffers are able to be achieved to avoid land use conflict.'

11. Regarding the access via Merino Road, Kings Meadows the planning authority submitted:
    1. 'Pitt & Sherry's engineering review confirms that vehicular access from Merino Street is achievable, subject to earthworks and retaining structures to address grade differentials and pedestrian safety. This route remains the only viable option for the site pending review of future connection opportunities.
    2. Council believe that the concept design is appropriate for a scheme amendment application, understanding that detailed and technical engineering design would be provided through a development application.
    3. The plan provided demonstrates that the site is able to be adequately accessed and serviced, with appropriate building areas that consider site constraints. The amendment is restoring a more appropriate zoning for the site by amending a historic zoning error. The information provided demonstrates that through the rezoning, the property is able to be developed for residential purposes.'
12. The Concept Plan is attached at Annexure B.
13. It is noted that the land is vegetated and contains areas of steep slope. The Kings Meadows Rivulet winds through the front of the site within the SAP, which provides some scenic protection, but access is not available from Kings Meadows Link. The SAP provides development standards for visual impact and protection for screening vegetation and prominent trees. The SAP does not include any subdivision standards.
14. At the hearing the planning authority identified several places within the City of Launceston municipal area where infill sites have access through industrial areas in response to the historical development of a neighbourhood. The planning authority submitted these areas seemed to work effectively and were not subject to complaints.

1. The Commission notes that the Concept Plan provided by the applicant, for indicative purposes only, provides a potential 7 lot subdivision layout and road structure of the site to demonstrate development outcomes that could be consistent with rezoning from the Light Industrial Zone to the Low Density Residential Zone.
2. While conceptual, the Commission considers that the plan demonstrates that the site could likely facilitate future development incorporating a buffer to the adjoining existing Light Industrial Zone, has a likely access option from Merino Street notwithstanding the slope of land, and can likely enable development that has regard to the Southern Gateway SAP.
3. The Commission notes that access to the subject site via Ridgewood Lane was a concern expressed in representations and the evidence provided at the hearing if that there is no likely option that would seek to use access from Ridgewood Lane. The concept plan shows that access could be achieved from Merino Street.
4. The Commission notes that the Attenuation Code may require consideration at the time of subdivision depending on the activities occurring in the Light Industrial Zone present at that time.
5. The Commission finds that the application of the Low Density Residential Zone to the part of the subject site currently in the Light Industrial Zone provides opportunity for development which can respond to the constraints. The operation of the planning scheme can consider potential conflicts with the adjoining zone and manage access onto the site from Merino Street.
6. The Commission accepts the planning authority's submission that there are instances where residential and industrial traffic share roads without conflict or significant impacts. In this instance the expansion of the Low Density Residential Zone on the subject site is considered unlikely to affect the operation of Merino Street for light industrial uses.

Application of the Natural Assets Code - priority vegetation overlay

1. The planning authority provided a Threatened Flora and Fauna Assessment dated 13 December 2005. The report concluded that the site contained significant biodiversity value but was degraded and isolated. The planning authority proposed to apply the Natural Assets Code - priority vegetation overlay to part of the subject site proposed for inclusion in the Low Density Residential Zone.
2. The priority vegetation overlay currently applies to part of the title which is in the existing Low Density Residential Zone and does not apply to the part of the title in the Light Industrial Zone.
3. At the hearing the planning authority submitted that the proposed Natural Assets Code - priority vegetation overlay mapping included in the certified draft amendment had been applied based on Council's internal mapping.
4. In a response dated 20 May 2025 to the Commission's direction letter of 17 April 2025 the planning authority submitted that its mapping was provided by Rod Knight and was the Regional Ecosystem Model 1804 and Council, the planning authority, would not object to application of mapping based on the most contemporary data. The most contemporary data is TasVeg 4.0.

1. The Commission notes the original assessment of the vegetation on the site was undertaken several years ago and may not be accurate now. Based on a site visit and aerial imagery the Commission notes native vegetation is present on the site. However, it is not known the extent of degradation or regeneration of native vegetation or the incidence of weeds on the site.
2. The Commission accepts the Natural Assets Code-priority vegetation overlay should be applied as part of the amendment to enable consideration of natural values at development application stage. In using the most contemporary data, the extent of the overlay would be most of the proposed Low Density Residential Zone.
3. The Commission finds the Natural Assets Code-priority vegetation overlay should be applied to the site based on the most current LISTMap vegetation layer, which is TasVeg 4.0.
4. A beneficial element of the amendment is that the priority vegetation overlay would apply to the vegetation to the western part of the site for the first time. Under the current Light Industrial Zone, the priority vegetation overlay does not apply. This will enable consideration of the vegetation as part of a future planning application.

1. The relevant regional land use strategy is the Northern Tasmania Regional Land Use Strategy 2021-2032 (regional strategy).
2. The planning authority report dated 8 August 2024 submitted that the land was within a supporting consolidation area and aligned with the objectives by promoting cohesive communities and a continuation of zone patterns. The planning authority submitted that the draft amendment provided for residential use with existing access to activity centres.
3. At the hearing the planning authority reiterated that the subject site was within the consolidation area and advised that the subject site was walkable to Hobart Road, Kings Meadows and major transport route based on the distance only and not the existence of footpaths.

1. The Commission accepts the land is within a supporting consolidation area. The Commission notes the access provided to the site from Merino Street indicated in the submitted Concept Plan provides for vehicle connectivity. The Commission recognises that further work would necessarily occur to enable connectivity, including for pedestrians and this would be considered as part of a future planning application.
2. The Commission notes a small section of footpath exists on Merino Street adjoining Hobart Road, Kings Meadows.
3. The Commission finds the draft amendment is consistent with the regional strategy.

1. City of Launceston Corporate Strategic Plan 2014-2024: 2019 Reviews (the CSP) contains the following Strategic Priorities:
   1. We connect with our Community and our Region through meaningful engagement, cooperation and representation.
   2. We Facilitate Prosperity by seeking out and responding to opportunities for growth and renewal of our regional economy.
   3. We are a Progressive Leader that is accountable to our governance obligations and responsive to our community.
   4. We value our City's Unique Identity by celebrating our special heritage and culture, and building on our competitive advantages to be a place where people choose to live, work and visit.
   5. We Serve and Care for our community by providing equitable and efficient services that reflects needs and expectations of our community.
   6. We Protect our Environment by caring for our unique natural assets and amenity, and sensitively managing future development opportunities.
   7. We are a City Planning for our Future by ensuring our approach to strategic land-use, development and infrastructure investment is coordinated, progressive, and sustainable.
2. In the planning authority report dated 8 August 2024 it was submitted that the draft amendment aligned with Strategic Priorities 1, 6 and 7 of the City of Launceston Corporate Strategic Plan 2014-2024: 2019 Reviews (the CSP).
   • Ensuring the public have their say through the formal advertising process.
   • Expand the priority vegetation overlay to ensure future development of the site considers its natural values.
   • Allow for the natural expansion of the existing residential zone to ensure the site is able to be developed appropriately taking into consideration its constraints.
3. The planning authority submitted that the draft amendment was consistent with the Residential Strategy 2009-2029 and the Launceston Industrial Strategy 2009-2029.

1. The Commission accepts the planning authority's submission that amendment generally seeks to advance on the Strategic Priorities in the Council's local plans and strategies.
2. The Commission notes that the land was included in the Launceston Residential Strategy 2009 - 2029 and excluded from the Launceston Industrial Strategy 2009 - 2029.
3. The Commission is persuaded that the draft amendment is supported by the relevant local strategic plans.

1. The planning authority in its report dated 8 August 2024 submitted that no state policies except for the National Environment Protection Measures (NEPMs) related to the draft amendment.

1. The Commission accepts the evidence provided by the planning authority regarding compliance with the NEPMs.
2. The Commission finds that no other State Policies are relevant to the draft amendment.

1. In the report dated 8 August 2024 the planning authority addressed the Part 1 Objectives and the Part 2 Objectives and provided a detailed response to each section.
2. The planning authority submitted that the draft amendment on balance would not have a negative impact on natural or physical resources or the development of air, land and water. Additionally, the planning authority submitted that the draft amendment provided for public involvement through the exhibition period and assisted in stimulating economic development.
3. In the report the planning authority submitted that the draft amendment was consistent with the regional strategy, considered the effects on the natural values, was consistent with local, regional and State policies and would be assessed against the planning scheme as required in the future.
4. A representation was received which raised issue with potential conflict between the Low Density Residential Zone and the Light Industrial Zone. The representor raised concern with the possible impact to businesses in the existing Light Industrial Zone.

1. The Commission accepts the evidence that demonstrates the draft amendment would provide for the fair, orderly and sustainable use and development of air, land, and water.
2. The Commission accepts the evidence demonstrates low density residential development can occur on the part of the site currently within the Light Industrial Zone in combination with the other part of the site already within the Low Density Residential Zone.
3. The Commission is satisfied that while subject to a future planning application, matters relating to access, building envelopes capable of providing a buffer from the adjoining light industrial uses & minimising potential land use conflict have been demonstrated to a level necessary to justify the application of the Low Density Residential Zone to the land.
4. 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. As discussed above, the submitted Natural Assets Code - priority vegetation overlay instrument mapping provided by the planning authority was based on vegetation mapping undertaken several years ago and is not the most current mapping available for the site.
3. In its submission dated 20 May 2025, the planning authority advised it supported the use of the most recent vegetation mapping available for the application of the Natural Assets Code - priority vegetation overlay.

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 PSA-LLP0014, Tasmanian Planning Commission - Launceston

Apply the Low Density Residential Zone at 30 Merino Street, Kings Meadows, as shown below:

Apply the Natural Assets Code- priority vegetation overlay at 30 Merino Street, Kings Meadows, as shown below: