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 apply the Rural Zone and Natural Assets Code -priority vegetation overlay to part of 729-739 John Lees Drive, Dilston (43 Los Angelos Road, Swan Bay).

The entire property is folio of the Register 165889/1 and is159.4ha and is bisected by Windemere Road. The subject site is south of Windermere Road and east of John Lees Drive.

The subject land comprises three different landforms,

• cleared, sloping unimproved pasture land below Windermere Road
• an area of flat land adjacent to the watercourse
• a large wetland fronting the river.

The TasVeg4.0 layer on LISTmap identifies the wetland as containing freshwater aquatic sedgeland and rushland. This is listed as a threatened native vegetation community under the Nature Conservation Act 2002.

The subject site is in the Agriculture Zone and adjoins land in the Agriculture Zone to the north (same title) and to the east. To the west land is in the Rural Living Zone and the Environmental Management Zone and to the south land is in the Rural Zone and Rural Living Zones. Land to the south is subject to the Local Historic Heritage Code.

Part of the site is subject to the Landslip Hazard, Flood-Prone Areas Hazard, Coastal Inundation Hazard, Coastal Erosion Hazard - high coastal erosion hazard band, Natural Assets - waterway and coastal protection overlay. The entire site is subject to the Scenic Protection Code.

Part of the site is included in the Future Coastal Refugia Area Guidance Map on the LISTmap.

• Would allow farm to be sold
• Impact on the wetland, no report provided on flora and fauna
• TasVeg3.0 out of date does not consider threatened vegetation on site
• Trees on site provide habitat for sea eagles, wedgetail eagles and other species
• Why is the Environmental Zone unsuitable
• Impact on visual and physical boundaries
• Change of use may produce fire hazard to adjoining land
• Is this to eventually enable Rural Living Zone

• Reducing area of land zoned Agriculture may impact on overall farm viability
• The land on the southern portion has the most productive agricultural land
• Use should not be intensified on land subject to flooding
• Uses permissible in the Rural Zone possible impacts on wetland
• Landslip has not been addressed in submitted reports
• Community not adequately consulted, and
• Potential risks to agricultural sustainability, landscape character, biodiversity and local community.

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 that the priority vegetation overlay be amended to reflect TasVeg4.0 on LISTmap.

The hearing was held at the Launceston Town Hall, St John Street, Launceston on the 13 February 2026.

Planning authority: Jen Welch, Senior Planner, Launceston City Council

Applicant: Chloe Lynne, Planning and Development Consultant Commercial Project Delivery

Jason Lynch, Agricultural Consultant, Pinion Advisory

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

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

(b) is in accordance with section 32; and

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

(d) is consistent with each State policy; and

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

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

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

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

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

1. In the agricultural report dated 9 December 2024 Mr Lynch on behalf of the applicant submitted:

'The southern block of the subject property is constrained for agricultural land use due to limitations associated with the land capability, topography, no irrigated land use activity is undertaken and current lack of and or challenging access to irrigation water and is exposed to an existing level of fettering due to the presence of various residential dwellings on lifestyle blocks adjacent to the north west.'

1. In both his written report and evidence at the hearing Mr Lynch concluded there was no realistic prospect of the subject site supporting viable grazing, cropping or horticultural enterprises.
2. In the applicant's report dated March 2025 it was submitted that the application of the Rural Zone met the Section 8A Guidelines as:

'The area of the site proposed to be rezoned to Rural has limited agricultural potential due to limitations with land capability, topography, challenging access to irrigation water, residential fettering and tidal flooding.'

1. It was further concluded that the application of the Landscape Conservation Zone was not appropriate for the land as it did not contain large areas of bushland containing threatened species.
2. In the planning authority's supporting report dated 19 June 2025 the planning authority submitted that the application of the Rural Zone would enable appropriate uses to be undertaken on the site noting the constraints and viability of the land.
3. In response to the Commission's direction dated 1 October 2025, the planning authority provided a submission dated 29 January 2026. The planning authority stated that the Rural Zone was consistent with the Guidelines and therefore was the most suitable zone for the land. Furthermore, the planning authority submitted that it was not necessary to consider use and development standards when utilizing the Guidelines.
4. At the hearing, the planning authority submitted that the Agricultural Zone had been applied during the implementation of the interim planning scheme, probably incorrectly, and the application of the Rural Zone was more appropriate.
5. At the hearing both the applicant and the planning authority ruled out a split-zone on the site as being neither practical nor necessary. Both parties submitted that the current and proposed code overlays plus other relevant legislation would provide adequate protection for the natural values on the site.
6. A site visit undertaken by the Commission confirmed Mr Lynch's assessment of the nature of the site and the constraints on viable agricultural enterprises.

1. The Commission finds that the application of the Rural Zone is appropriate for the subject site as proposed in the certified amendment, whilst noting it is also consistent with the Section 8A Guidelines.

1. In the applicant's report dated March 2025 the natural values of the site were summarised as described below:

'The northern section of the site has a small area of Eucalyptus viminalis vegetation (included in a figure). A large portion of the southern section of the site is covered in wetlands communities (included in a figure) ASF (fresh water aquatic sedgeland and rushland) and ARS (saline sedgeland/rushland). Neither of these wetland communities are listed at threatened communities.'

1. A natural values assessment was not included with the application documents, however, the wetland area is mapped within the Future Coastal Refugia Area Guidance Map in LISTmap and described as containing freshwater aquatic sedgeland and rushland in the TasVeg4.0 layer on the LISTmap. This is a threatened native vegetation community listed under the Nature Conservation Act 2002.
2. In the planning authority's Section 40K report in response to a representation received the planning authority acknowledged that the site contains threatened flora and fauna and stated:

'...No development is currently proposed, any future development of the site would be subject to an assessment of the relevant provisions of the planning scheme at that time, which currently would include the Natural Assets Code. Furthermore, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 also protects threatened flora and fauna outside the planning process.'

1. The planning authority recommended modifying the draft amendment to change the Natural Assets Code - priority vegetation overlay on the more up to date TasVeg4.0 layer in LISTmap in substitute for TasVeg3.0 which was utilised in the certified amendment Natural Assets Code-priority vegetation overlay.
2. In its submission dated 29 January 2026 and at the hearing, the planning authority indicated it no longer supported the application of the future coastal refugia area overlay to the site. Its reasons were,
   • This overlay has not previously been applied in the municipality
   • Because the landform has been modified it does not necessarily meet the definition of a future coastal refugia area
   • Existing overlays and their applicable standards are similar to the future coastal refugia overlay standards and provide adequate protection for the wetland.
3. At the hearing the representor, Mr Chaplin, raised concerns with the management of wetlands on the Tamar Estuary and submitted there were migratory birds, intertidal habitats and threatened plants and animals which should be protected.
4. At the hearing the applicant agreed to increase the extent of the Natural Assets Code - priority vegetation overlay consistent with the modification recommended by the planning authority.

1. The Commission agrees that the Natural Assets Code - priority vegetation overlay should be applied to the site and that the TasVeg4.0 layer provides a more recent extent than proposed in the certified amendment.
2. The Commission considers that the wetland meets the definition of a future coastal refugia area, and that that overlay would provide an additional level of protection to the wetland.
3. The Commission finds that the Natural Assets Code - future coastal refugia area overlay should be applied based on the Guidance Map published on the LIST consistent with the Section 8A Guidelines.
4. The Commission notes that the inclusion of the area in the future coastal refugia area overlay provides consistency with areas mapped on Kanamaluka/Tamar Estuary by adjoining planning authorities.

1. The relevant regional land use strategy is the Northern Tasmanian Regional Land Use Strategy 2021 (regional strategy).
2. In the applicant's report dated March 2025, it was submitted that the draft amendment was consistent with Strategic Direction G3.1 Promote and protect the Region's unique environmental assets and values. Strategic Direction G3.2 and G3.2 Establish planning policies to support sustainable development, address the impacts of climate change, improve energy efficiency and reduce environmental emissions and pollutants.
3. Regarding D.2.2.4 Key Planning Principles for Rural Areas the applicant submitted that the draft amendment does not contradict the key planning principles of D2.2.4.
4. In the planning authority's supporting report dated 19 June 2025, it stated that the relevant Policies were:

'The rezoning will not alter the existing situation, in that any rural viability of the site will still be maintained. The proposal seeks to change the zone of low level rural land to allow the site opportunity for development into the future. The primary agricultural activities on the site are located in the northern block, which will be retained. The site is not subject to irrigation practices nor has it the potential to connect to such systems. The zoning will not impact on the estuarine habitats, noting these areas are protected under the scheme.'

'By rezoning part of the site, the application of the priority vegetation overlay will be imposed. This overlay offers greater protection of the exiting priority vegetation on the site than the Agriculture Zone, ensuring biodiversity is protected.'

'The site contains several natural hazards. The scheme allows for the management of these hazards through relevant code provisions. The change of zoning will not remove these existing protections.'

**'**Due to the southern portion of the site adjoining the Kanamaluka/Tamar Estuary, the site is subject to C10.0 Coastal Erosion Hazard Code and C11.0 Coastal Inundation Hazard Code through existing overlay mapping. The change of zoning will not remove these existing protections.'

'The site contains a scenic protection overlay. This overlay will be retained and as such the scenic amenity will be protected.'

'The site contains several natural hazards. The scheme allows for the management of these hazards through relevant code provisions. The change of zoning will not remove these existing protections.'

1. The Commission finds that the draft amendment is consistent with the regional strategy.
2. The Commission notes there are no local strategies relevant to the draft amendment.

1. In the applicant's report dated March 2025 the following was provided regarding the State Policies:
   • The State Coastal Policy does not apply as the land is not within 1km of the coast
   • Regarding the State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997 the applicant submitted that the potential to create 2 lots because of the draft amendment would not impact on water quality, and
   • An agricultural assessment was provided by the applicant which addressed each of the principles of the PAL policy, and
   • The applicant submitted the NEPMs were not relevant to the amendment.
2. The planning authority submitted that the draft amendment would not result in an increase of sediment transport to surface waters, so it was therefore consistent with the State Policy on Water Quality Management.
3. Regarding the NEPMs, the planning authority submitted that there were no known contamination issues on the site. The planning authority further submitted that the provisions of the Natural Assets Code, Attenuation Code in conjunction with the Urban Drainage Act 2013 and Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPCA) adequately dealt with environmental protection issues.
4. The planning authority provided an assessment of each of the PAL principles.
5. At the hearing, the applicant's agricultural expert identified the constraints to agricultural use on the site. Mr Lynch submitted that a large part of the site was a wetland and should be preserved as such and the remainder of the site could not sustain viable agricultural enterprises.
6. In response to the panel's questions about whether the agricultural value of the title to the north of Windermere Road would be diminished by the change of zone, Mr Lynch submitted that the land to the north would not be impacted because there is no critical infrastructure on the subject site. In addition, he indicated that moving livestock and/or farm machinery across the road that bisects the two blocks added operational complexities and safety issues.
7. Specifically addressing the PAL Policy Mr Lynch advised that there was no practical or economically feasible way of returning the wetland area to a state where it could be used for any form of agricultural enterprise. It was Mr Lynch's expert opinion that the inclusion of this area of land in the Agriculture Zone was not appropriate.

1. The Commission finds that all State Policies apply to the site, including the State Coastal Policy 1996.
2. The Commission accepts the evidence regarding the State Policy of Water Quality Management 1997, the National Environment Measures (NEPMs) and the State Policy on the Protection of Agricultural land 2009.
3. The Commission finds that the draft amendment, as modified by the extended area of the natural assets code and the introduction of the coastal refugee area, is consistent with the State Coastal Policy 1996 as the implementation of the Natural Assets Code -future coastal refugia area overlay would provide enhanced protection for coastal processes and the wetland.

1. In the applicant's report dated March 2025 and in the planning authority's supporting report dated 19 June 2025 each provided a response to the individual objective and concluded the draft amendment would further the Objectives of the Act.

1. The Commission finds that on balance the draft amendment, with modifications described below, seeks to further the Objectives of the Resource Management and Planning System in Schedule 1 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. Consistent with the planning authority's recommendation provided in its section 40K report dated 21 August 2025 modify the extent of the Natural Assets Code - priority vegetation overlay to be consistent with TasVeg4.0 on LISTmap.
3. Apply the Natural Assets Code - future coastal refugia area overlay consistent with the Guidance Map layer on LISTmap.
4. Amend the application of the Rural Zone from the property boundary to the centreline of Windemere Road, Dilston consistent with the Commission's Practice Note 7 - Draft LPS mapping: technical advice.

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

1. Apply the Rural Zone at 729-739 John Lees Drive, Dilston (43 Los Angelos Road, Swan Bay) folio of the Register 165889/1 as shown below:

1. Apply the Natural Assets Code - priority vegetation overlay at 729-739 John Lees Drive, Dilston (43 Los Angelos Road, Swan Bay) folio of the Register 165889/1 as shown below:

1. Apply the Natural Assets Code - future coastal refugia area overlay at 729-739 John Lees Drive, Dilston (43 Los Angelos Road, Swan Bay) folio of the Register 165889/1 as shown below: