Tasmanian Planning Scheme - Northern Midlands amendment 19-2025 [2026] TASPComm 8 | Case summary

The applicant's planning report submitted that the proposed site-specific qualifications satisfies section 32(4)(a) and (b) of the Act as the proposed development, which would be allowed by the subdivided land in the Future Urban Zone, will provide for a significant social and economic benefit to the region and municipal area by increasing the residential land supply in Perth.
The planning report submitted that the site has unique spatial qualities as it is split by the Midland Highway and that the part of the site in the Future Urban Zone can be developed for urban development, but this can only be achieved through separating the split zones which would be facilitated by the SSQ.
At the hearing George Walker submitted that the land has been in the same ownership since 1984, and before the Perth bypass was developed the frontage to the site was from Drummond Street. Mr Walker submitted that one significant omission with the design of the Perth bypass was that the underpass for the property is undersized and does not allow large farming vehicles to cross under the highway, significantly impacting the owner's ability to farm the northern side of his property and has therefore limited the agriculture purpose of the land to grazing.
Mr Walker noted that the northern part of the site has been identified in the Perth Structure Plan as a growth area, and the land has effectively been removed from its agricultural state from a strategic perspective on the basis that it has been assigned to the Future Urban Zone.
Mr Walker submitted that Perth has been a significant growth area for the north of the state, because it is close to Launceston and has access from the Midland Highway and was the last greenfield development area within Perth.
Mr Walker noted that land on western side of Perth known as Sky Hill Estate has 200 lots approved, and 77 lots left which he believes will be sold within 2 years. Mr Walker noted that Perth does have other land to the north available for possible development, but this area which is also zoned Future Urban has significant flooding and other issues associated with it.

The Commission notes the applicant's and planning authority's submissions to justify the proposed site-specific qualification under section 32(4) of the Act. The site has unique spatial qualities as it is severed by the Midland Highway that has created the boundary between two zones. The site-specific qualifications will allow for subdivision of the site to allow for future residential application in accordance with the Future Urban Zone and will separate this land from the balance Agriculture zoned land.
The Commission rejects the representors view that the amendment should be refused based on the previous TASCAT decision to uphold a decision by the council to refuse a subdivision application on this land.
This amendment is materially different to the permit applications made by the representors in that it relates to amending the LPS SSQ NOR-21.1 and NOR-30.1 to specifically insert a qualification (d) under the Acceptable Solutions to allow for the separation of the Future Urban Zone from the Agriculture Zone along the alignment of the Midland Highway (which divides the site), thereby providing a legitimate pathway for a 2 lot subdivision as submitted to be approved.
The Commission finds that the subject site has particular economic and spatial qualities that meet section 32(4)(b) of the Act.

State Policies and Schedule 1 Objectives of the Act

The State Coastal Policy 1996 is not applicable due to the location of the site. The Commission finds accordingly.
Water quality management measures can be required where appropriate to potential future development. The Commission finds that the draft amendment is consistent with the State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997.
The State Policy on the Protection of Agricultural Land 2009 (PAL Policy) has application to the site. The evidence for the applicant was that agriculture on land in the Future Urban zone became untenable with the new alignment of the Midland Highway that severed the site and made access to the northern proportion of the site unsuitable for accessing by farm machinery. Nevertheless, the draft amendment does not change the part of the site zoned Agriculture and the part of the site zoned Future Urban is not agricultural land as defined in the State Policy. The Commission finds that the draft amendment is consistent with the PAL Policy_._
The National Environment Protection Measures do not have application for the draft amendment. The Commission finds accordingly.
With specific reference to Part 1 Objective 1(b) 'to provide for the fair, orderly and sustainable use and development of air, land and water;' the Commission finds the draft amendment furthers the Schedule 1 Objectives.

Under section 40M of the Act the Commission must consider whether modifications to a draft amendment of an LPS ought to be made.
Advice provided on the Commission's website Planners Portal advises that:

It is anticipated that where a whole SPP provision is substituted or an additional provision added, it would have the same format as the SPP provision.

The Commission considers that the new subclause to the Acceptable Solutions should insert the whole of clause 21.5.1 Lot design and 30.5.1 Lot design to make the SSQ easily readable in NOR-Site-specific Qualifications. The Commission considers the additional subclause is not a modification of the existing acceptable solution text, but an augmentation of the text to insert a new provision.
In addition, other minor editorial corrections are required to the draft amendment.
Section 34(2)(a) of the Act requires that a draft amendment of an LPS contains all the provisions that the State Planning Provisions (SPPs) specify must be contained in an LPS. LP1.6.1 of the SPPs requires that SSQs 'must be shown on the overlay maps, annotated with the reference number and all information requirements completed in a relevant list in the LPS.'
While the certified draft amendment includes a complete listing for the table at NOR-Site-specific Qualification, it does not include a map showing the SSQ hatching and annotation applying to the subject site.
The draft amendment is modified by applying a hatched overlay and annotation to the subject site as described in section 3.3 of Practice Note 7.

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

Under section 40T(1) of the Act , a person who requests a planning authority under section 37 to amend an LPS may also:

(a) make an application to the planning authority for a permit, which permit could not be issued unless the LPS were amended as requested; and

(b) request the planning authority to consider the request to amend the LPS and the application for a permit at the same time.

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.

The representations (other than for TasWater) based their objection to the draft amendment on a previous permit application to subdivide the site along the boundary between the two zones. The application was refused by the planning authority and subsequently the refusal affirmed on appeal to TASCAT. The Tribunal concluded the application did not satisfy the performance criteria P1 of clause 30.5.1.
The TasWater notice to the planning authority provided conditions to be included in the permit under sections 56P and 56S of the Water and Sewerage Industry Act 2008.

The draft amendment provided for SSQs to be inserted in 21.5.1 Lot design of the Agriculture Zone and 30.5.1 Lot design of the Future Urban Zone. The inserted standards are to allow for the subdivision to separate the Agriculture Zone from the Future Urban Zone along the alignment of the Midland Highway. The draft amendment is to overcome the previous impediment to subdivision.
The SSQs insert subclause (d) as an additional standard to the Acceptable Solutions in both zones. As the proposed additional standards provide for the intended subdivision as Acceptable Solutions no corresponding Performance Criteria are required.
The permit application is for a 2 lot subdivision of the site. As such the development application must be considered against the applicable standards in the Future Urban Zone and Agriculture Zone and applicable codes in the State Planning Provisions.
Both the applicant and planning authority provided an assessment of the proposal against the planning scheme provisions. The Commission accepts the assessment and finds the permit application meets the relevant zone and acceptable solutions including the SSQs enabled by the draft amendment.

At the hearing, the drafting of the planning permit conditions was reviewed.
Conditions 2 and 3 on the TasWater notice provides for developer charges and the payment by the developer of a fee for development assessment and for consent to register a legal document. The conditions are not for a proper planning purpose[1] and should be removed but may be included as advice. Also minor editorial corrections are required to the permit to reference the correct Submission to Planning Authority Notice from TasWater.
Additional modifications to the permit were discussed with the parties, as follows:
- delete 'use and' from condition 1
- reference the TasWater conditions by inserting 'and conditions' after 'Notice' in conditions 2
- insert the TasNetworks Easement Note as condition 3.
The planning authority and applicant accepted these changes.
The Commission confirms the decision of the planning authority to approve the permit with the required modifications as follows:
- in condition 1 delete 'use and'
- in condition 2 insert 'and conditions' after 'Notice'
- in condition 2 delete 'TWDA 2023/01002-NMC' and replace with 'TWDA 2025/00579-NMC'
- in condition 2 insert after 'Appendix A,' ' excluding condition 2 and 3'
- insert the TasNetworks Easement Note as condition 3.

The Commission modifies the conditions attached to the permit granted by the planning authority, as set out above, and as contained in Annexure B of the decision.

Modified amendment 19-2025, Tasmanian Planning Scheme - Northern Midlands

1. Amend clause NOR-Site-specific Qualifications by inserting the following:

Description (modification, substitution or addition)

A substitution to Acceptable Solution A1 for this site is:

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

(a) be required for public use by the Crown, a council or a State authority;

(b) be required for the provision of Utilities or irrigation infrastructure;

(c) be for the consolidation of a lot with another lot provided both lots are within the same zone; or

(d) be for the separation of the Agriculture Zone from the Future Urban Zone along the alignment of the Midland Highway which divides the site.

A substitution to Acceptable Solution A1 for this site is:

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

(a) be required for public use by the Crown, a council or a State authority;

(b) be required for the provision of Utilities;

(c) be for the consolidation of a lot with another lot provided each lot is within the same zone; or

(d) be for the separation of the Future Urban Zone from the Agriculture Zone along the alignment of the Midland Highway which divides the site.

Amend the planning scheme maps to show site-specific qualifications NOR‑21.1 and NOR‑30.1 on 5 Eskleigh Road, Perth (folio of the Register 185939/1) as shown below.

The development must be in accordance with the endorsed document P1 (Subdivision Proposal Plan, 6ty, Project No. 24.264, Drawing No., Cp01, Rev-, 10.04.25).

Sewer and water services must be provided in accordance with TasWater's Submission to Planning Authority Notice and conditions (reference number TWDA 2025/00579-NMC) - Attached at Appendix A, excluding condition 2 and 3.

The final plan of subdivision must show a 12m wide easement (6m either side of the centreline) over the overhead high voltage (22kV) feeders on the subject site.

*permit conditions modified by the decision of the Tasmanian Planning Commission dated 6 March 2026

[1] See Western Australian Planning Commission v Temwood Holding Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 63 at 57 and 60

Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993

Sewerage Industry Act 2008

Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993

a previous request for subdivision was refused by the Northern Midlands Council and appeal made to TASCAT (Drummond Street Developments Pty Ltd v Northen Midlands Council [2023] TASCAT 77) affirmed the Council decision; and
the legality of excising a house and land in a subdivision, where the area of the lot that contains a house is lesser than the area of the balance land.

Tasmanian Planning Scheme - Northern Midlands amendment 19-2025 [2026] TASPComm 8 (6 March 2026)

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (31 paragraphs)

Legislation Cited (8)

Cases Cited (1)