The applicant's letter to the Commission, which outlined the reasons for the requested review, noted the proposed draft amendment was supported by a comprehensive suite of documents and recommended for certification by the assessing officer. The request was also accompanied by a copy of the planning authority's notice of decision.

To assist the Commission in its review, further information was sought from the planning authority on 13 October 2025. The information included:

• a copy of the Council agenda, attachments, and minutes for 15 September 2025; and
• any other material that was relevant to the planning authority's decision.

The planning authority provided the following documents to the Commission on

• a copy of the Council agenda and minutes for 15 September 2025; and
• a copy of the attachments to the Council agenda for 15 September 2025, including the applicant's report and supporting documents.

The draft amendment is an iteration of a similar proposal lodged in 2018. Following community consultation, the location and overall design of the proposal evolved. Most notably, the extent of the land proposed to be rezoned was reduced and relocated closer to the Evandale township.

The current iteration of the requested amendment was lodged with the planning authority in 2024. The matter was considered by the planning authority at its meeting on 15 September 2025. The assessing officer recommended the planning authority prepare and certify the amendment, which included rezoning of the land to General Residential, Rural Living, Local Business, Community Purpose, and Open Space. The requested amendment also included modifications to the Evandale Specific Area Plan (SAP) to extend the SAP over the site and ensure its provisions were relevant to the proposed zones. The proposed modifications to the SAP included two new precincts (the Evandale Expansion Development Precinct Masterplan and the Arthur Street Development Precinct Masterplan) and an amendment to the Logan Road Development Precinct Masterplan. Diagrams were proposed, which would show an anticipated subdivision layout for the Evandale Expansion Development Precinct Masterplan and the Arthur Street Development Precinct Masterplan. Furthermore, Local Area Objectives were proposed for the Local Business Zone in the Evandale Expansion Development Precinct.

The attachments to the agenda report included the following documents submitted by the applicant in support of the requested amendment:

• Planning Report, Ireneinc, February 2025
• Residential Supply and Demand Analysis for Evandale, SGS Economics and Planning, May 2022
• Evandale Expansion Plan Cost Benefit Analysis, SGS Economics and Planning, August 2025
• Agricultural Assessment Report, Pinion Advisory, September 2023
• Engineering Services Report, MRC Consulting Engineers, December 2023
• Preliminary Water and Sewerage Report, MRC Consulting Engineers, October 2024
• Traffic Impact Assessment (Revision 01), Pitt & Sherry, January 2024
• Traffic Impact Assessment (Revision 02), Pitt & Sherry, December 2024
• Evandale Masterplan, proposed residential subdivision, Traffic Engineering Peer Review, May 2024
• Aboriginal Heritage Assessment, Cultural Heritage Management Australia, October 2023
• Historic Heritage Assessment Report, Cultural Heritage Management Australia, October 2023
• Natural Values Report, Natural Environment Services Tasmania, November 2022
• Preliminary Flood Hazard Assessment Report, MRC Consulting Engineers, December 2023
• Bushfire Management Report, Ireneinc, 2023
• Preliminary Site Contamination Investigation, Pitt & Sherry, April 2023; and
• Landslide Hazard Assessment, Pitt & Sherry, May 2023.

On 23 September 2025, the applicant received a notice from the planning authority advising of its decision to refuse the request for an amendment. The notice advised the planning authority had refused to prepare the amendment under section 38(2)(b) of the Act for the following reasons:

Considering the matters referred to in section 38(1) of the Act, the planning authority is of the opinion that the proposed amendment:

1. Does not represent sound strategic planning and co-ordinated action by State and local government, contrary to Schedule 1, Part 2 (a) of the Act. Specifically, the Department of State Growth has advised it is appropriate that proposals of this type, scale and location are considered as part of the current comprehensive review of the Northern Tasmania Regional Land Use Strategy, and any rezoning ideally be undertaken in context of the outcomes of the review.
2. Does not protect public infrastructure and other assets and enable the orderly provision and co-ordination of public utilities and other facilities for the benefit of the community, contrary to Schedule 1, Part 2 (h) of the Act. Specifically,

a) TasWater has advised that: > > * Most of the land is outside TasWater's serviced land for sewage and water supply. > * TasWater has no plans to expand its network in newly rezoned land. > * The land proposed for rezoning will represent a very significant increase in the demand placed on the sewage treatment plant, vastly exceeding the licence limit for the plant and the capacity to treat and dispose of effluent. > > b) The design parameters of the proposed by-pass road have not been determined, and the likely resulting alignment requirements have not been incorporated into the proposed Evandale expansion master plan layout. > > c) The site is located under or near the departure tracks for runway 14R and the arrival tracks for runway 32L as shown in the Master Plan. Hence this development may be subject to low-level noise from the aircraft using these flight paths in the future.

3. Has not considered the effects on the environment, specifically the green and gold frog, contrary to Schedule 1, Part 2 (c) of the Act.
4. Given its scale, does not conserve areas or places (being Evandale) of historical interest, contrary to Schedule 1, Part 2 (g) of the Act.

(1) A person, within 14 days of receiving a notice under section 38(3) that the planning authority has decided not to prepare a draft amendment of an LPS in accordance with the person's request, may request the Commission to determine whether the Commission is satisfied that the planning authority took into account, in making its decision, the matters referred to in section 38(1).

1. Section 38(1) states that a planning authority must be satisfied that a draft amendment of an LPS will meet the LPS criteria, which are listed under section 34(2) of the Act.
2. The role of the Commission under section 40B(1) is limited. It does not require that the Commission reviews the planning merit of the planning authority's decision. Rather, it requires that the Commission is satisfied that the planning authority has properly considered the LPS criteria.
3. It is noted that the meeting agenda contained a detailed report by suitably qualified planner that provided a detailed assessment against the LPS criteria. The report concluded the amendment met the LPS criteria and was considered by the planning authority at its meeting on 15 September 2025.
4. It is clear from the planning authority reasons above, that it did consider 4 of the Part 2 Objectives in Schedule 1 of the Act, which are Objectives of the Planning Processes Established by the Act. However, there is no information available to indicate that it considered the merit of the detailed information provided by the applicant. Further there are no reasons why the position adopted by the planning authority has been preferred to the position advanced by the applicant.

1. A detailed response to outline how the planning authority considered the remaining LPS criteria was not provided.
2. For example, there is no consideration of the Schedule 1 Part 1(d) objective to facilitate economic development in accordance with the three proceeding objectives in Part 1. There is no consideration of the Schedule 1 Part 2 Objective to promote the health and wellbeing of all Tasmanians by ensuring a pleasant, efficient and safe environment for working, living and recreation. These considerations are also relevant to LPS criterion s34(2)(c).
3. Similarly, there is no consideration of LPS criterion s34(2)(d) which relates to consistency with each State Policy, the Protection of Agricultural Land Policy, being a relevant State Policy.
4. On the information available it is not possible to conclude that the planning authority gave comprehensive consideration to the request in light of the information presented, and took into account all the matters referred to in section 38(1). None of the remarks given by the councillors at the Council meeting clarify same.
5. The Commission accepts that assessment against the LPS Criteria, and indeed within some of the individual criteria (such as the RMPS objectives) may lead to potentially competing outcomes. The challenge for the decision-making process is to ensure that all matters related to relevant LPS criteria are taken into account, to reconcile any competing outcomes where possible, and provide reasons for a decision having regard to all the information presented.

1. After reviewing the documents provided by the planning authority, I am satisfied the planning authority was provided enough information to determine whether the requested amendment met the LPS criteria. I also consider it clear that the planning authority did not give comprehensive consideration to the LPS criteria as required by section 38(1).

1. In accordance with section 40B(4)(a) of the Act, the Commission directs the planning authority to reconsider whether to prepare a draft amendment in relation to a request made on behalf of Trader's In Purple, considered by the planning authority on 15 September 2025.