Applicant Ireneinc Planning and Urban Design for Wolf Inc

Under section 40N(1)(c)(i) of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, the draft amendment is rejected, and the planning authority is directed to submit to the Commission a substitute draft amendment, as set out in Attachment A.

• rezone the land at 3 Weston Hill Road, and 5 Cole Street Sorell from the General Residential Zone to the General Business Zone
• rezone parts of the land at 2 Pawleena Road, Sorell from the Open Space Zone to the General Business Zone
• rezone parts of the land at 2 Pawleena Road, Sorell from the Low Density Residential Zone to the General Business Zone, and
• apply site-specific qualifications to the land at 2 Pawleena Road and 3 Weston Hill Road, Sorell relating to use qualifications and setback standards.

The site consists of 3 Weston Hill Road, Sorell folio of the Register 239252/1, 5 Cole Street, Sorell folio of the Register 230862/1 and 2 Pawleena Road, Sorell folios of the Register 52621/1, 61/654 and 222468/1.

The subject properties are located to the northeast of the Sorell General Business Zone. They are adjoining with an aggregate area of approximately 5.2ha and bisected by the Sorell Rivulet (the rivulet). The land at 2 Pawleena Road and 5 Cole Street each contain dwellings and associated outbuildings. Each property has a frontage to a road with 2 Pawleena Road also having a frontage to Cole Street.

Part of the site is currently being used for low level agricultural purposes including grazing of livestock (sheep). Aerial imagery indicates a water feature on 2 Pawleena which is undefined.

3 Weston Hill Road and 5 Cole Street are in the General Residential Zone. 2 Pawleena Road is in the Open Space and Low Density Residential zones. The site is subject to the Safeguarding of Airports Code - airport noise exposure area overlay and Bushfire-Prone Areas Code overlay. Parts of the site adjacent to the rivulet are subject to the Flood-Prone Areas Hazard Code overlay and the Natural Assets Code - waterway and coastal protection overlay.

Two representations were received. The following matters were raised:

• there will be an increase in traffic, impacting properties along Cole Street
• there will be 5 residential properties that will become an "island" surrounded by the new Business Zone, impacting residential amenity
• there is not sufficient public open space land reserved surrounding the rivulet and this is an underutilised asset for the community, and
• there will be a negative impact on nearby Ramsar Wetlands, from future expected development of the site degrading downstream water quality.

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 that it had 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 modification to the draft amendment.

The hearing was held at the Commission's office on Level 3, 144 Macquarie Street, Hobart on the 5 August 2024.

Planning authority: Shane Wells, Manager of Planning, Sorell Council

Phil Gartrell, Senior Planner, Ireneinc Planning and Urban Design

Tom Norman, Senior Water Resource Engineer, AD Design and Consulting

Jake Lynch, Associate Director, Location IQ (economic/retail impact assessment)

Other: Chris Irvine, Manager Flood Policy Unit, State Emergency Service (SES)

Ann Stewart, Flood Policy and Planning Analyst, State Emergency Service (SES)

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. Under section 32(4) of the Act, an LPS may only include a site-specific qualification 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's report dated 6 December 2024 proposed the insertion of site-specific qualifications (SSQs) to 2 Pawleena Road imposing use qualifications for General Retail and Hire and Bulky Goods Sales uses (minimum floor area of 300m2). The applicant submitted that the proposed SSQs will provide large-format retail offering at 2 Pawleena Road and prohibit the provision of further strip-retailing that may otherwise compete with smaller businesses along Cole Street and Gordon Street to the west (p6). Further, the proposed draft amendment would facilitate significant social and economic benefit to the region.
2. The planning authority's supporting report dated 17 December 2024, and associated resolution by the planning authority, modified the applicant's proposed draft amendment to include additional SSQs to 2 Pawleena Road and 3 Weston Hill Road to provide building separation from the rivulet. The planning authority submitted the proposed SSQ meets both 32(4) (a) and (b) of the Act, as described below:

Criteria (a) is satisfied as the proposal will provide significant social and economic benefits to the LGA through job creation and retention of spending. These benefits are outlined in the Economic Impact Assessment and include a significant number of construction, direct jobs and indirect jobs. > > Criteria (b) is satisfied as the rivulet has particular environmental, social and spatial qualities that are unique and of value. The rivulet is a central topographic element of the township, yet it is one that is largely hidden. Significant social benefits arise from spatial allocation of development in a manner that opens up public access to the rivulet. It is important this this occurs is a reasonable manner that balances development with amenity. > > There are numerous examples of rivulets in Greater Hobart that have very low levels of public access and amenity through inadequate siting and design. Locally, the Sorell Plaza treatment of the interface has created a closed-off area. The need to balance amenity is particularly significant to this site given that the eastern side of the rivulet is flood prone require specific design responses that could dominate the open space zone and detract from creating a significant public asset.

3. As part of its Section 40K report, and at its meeting on 18 February 2025, the planning authority recommended the following modification to the proposed SSQs:

'Increase the setback from the centre of the Sorell rivulet to 30m on the Eastern Side (Pawleena Road).'

4. At the hearing, Mr Shane Wells for the Sorell planning authority submitted that the increased setback distance from 10m to 30m did not reflect any adopted strategy in relation to the rivulet or surrounding areas, but it was introduced to provide additional space for public amenity.
5. Despite the planning authority's resolution that the setback was to be measured from the rivulet centerline, at the hearing Mr Wells stated it was preferable that the setback be measured from the proposed Open Space Zone boundary, as this would reflect a better planning outcome.
6. At the hearing, the applicant Mr Tom Rook submitted that an increase to a 30m setback from the boundary with the Open Space Zone may preclude the construction of a bridge over the rivulet as it would potentially decrease the overall development potential for the land.
7. At the hearing Mr Jake Lynch of Location iQ for the applicant, confirmed his submission dated 17 July 2025 that there was a demonstrated need for additional commercial land in Sorell which was supported by recent work undertaken by Sorell Council.
8. In relation to gross floor area standards, at the hearing both Mr Wells and Mr Lynch confirmed a minimum of 300m2 was sufficiently flexible and would ultimately be determined by potential future tenants. Neither party indicated any issue with increasing the minimum gross floor area for 2 Pawleena Road to further encourage large format retail on this land.

1. The Commission agrees with the planning authority that the rivulet is an important public asset with potential to provide significant community benefit, and ought to be managed through unique controls that assist with the facilitation and delivery of pedestrian links and public amenity.
2. The Commission is persuaded that an increased supply of Business Commercial zoned land is required to service the Sorell settlement catchment which in turn will provide further employment opportunities and economic benefit to the municipality. The Commission agrees with the applicant and the planning authority that commercial expansion in this location requires additional standards to facilitate large-format retail while limiting the potential for strip-retailing that may otherwise compete with smaller businesses in the established retail area of Sorell township.
3. However, for the reasons outlined in further detail below, the Commission is not persuaded that the proposed SSQs as drafted will sufficiently address other site-specific matters relating to managing flood function of the rivulet, the need to manage upstream and downstream flooding impacts and staging of critical infrastructure. The Commission accepts that the rivulet has particular environmental, social and spatial qualities that are unique and of community value and that these matters require management through tailored planning provisions.
4. To address the deficiencies of the certified SSQs, the Commission issued a post hearing direction to parties requesting feedback on a potential modification to replace the proposed SSQs with a suggested specific area plan, titled SOR-S6.0 Sorell Business and Rivulet Interface Specific Area Plan (the potential new SAP). The Commission also directed parties to provide their view on specific parts of the potential new SAP.
5. In response to the Commission's direction, the planning authority and applicant, in a joint submission dated 24 October 2025, proposed several changes to the potential new SAP.
6. The Commission is satisfied that the potential new SAP (as modified) meets section 32(4)(a) and (b) of the Act. The provisions in the potential new SAP are discussed further below.

Suitability of the General Business Zone and Open Space Zone

1. In the applicant's supporting report dated 6 December 2024, the applicant submitted:

2 Pawleena Road, 3 Weston Hill Road and 5 Cole Street are ideal for General Business zoning several reasons, including:

• Weston Hill Road provides direct connectivity to existing General Business land and the inclusion of a pedestrian link to 2 Pawleena Road also provides a much-needed link to residential expansions further east.
• The location is central to the township, in proximity to existing General Business zoning and surrounding residential areas providing ease of access.
• All three sites have relatively flat topography, ideal for development.
• All sites are either already connected or capable of being serviced by sewer and water, with scope for new connections and extensions to be made to existing infrastructure.

1. In the report, the applicant provided a Location iQ economic impact assessment which demonstrated the need for more land in the General Business Zone based on projections of demand relating to population growth and lack of other suitable land in the Sorell municipality.
2. Additionally, the Location iQ report submitted that most of the existing General Business zoned land in Sorell is occupied (existing use in operation), and of the limited vacant sites available, several have now obtained development approvals.
3. At the hearing, the planning authority submitted that the draft amendment was required to service the demonstrated population increase in the Sorell settlement and wider area, stating there was population induced demand for more General Business zoned land in the area. The planning authority further submitted that the site is ideally located, having proximity to the adjacent supermarket complex, and represents a logical extension to this established commercial/retail hub in Sorell.
4. The applicant stated at the hearing that the site also well placed to be able to provide good vehicular access and pedestrian connectivity with the existing commercial/retail hub and supermarket complex. The applicant also submitted in their supporting report:

There is now a notable lack of large vacant titles for commercial use and development, with virtually no opportunity for commercial growth left within in the town centre. > > In order to provide the range of goods/services to meet growing demand and avoid retail expenditure leakage, additional land is required. 2 Pawleena Road is located approximately 30m from existing General Business land (which supports the Coles precinct) and is suitable for rezoning to meet current/future demand for business land. > > 3 Weston Hill Road sits directly adjacent to the Woolworths precinct, which is zoned General Business. The rezoning of both sites will provide for a mix of future commercial/retail opportunities, with large-format options restricted to 2 Pawleena Road. Weston Hill Road will also be able to support commercial tenancies, but at a scale respective of the adjoining residential areas. (p31).

5. The applicant stated at the hearing and in their supporting report, that the proposed Open Space Zone 'strip' in the draft amendment is intended to protect and enhance opportunities for public passive recreation activities and is currently applied across the route of the rivulet. Mr Wells for the planning authority submitted at the hearing that the draft amendment proposes to retain a 10m wide open space corridor alongside the rivulet, intended to accommodate a future public walkway and connection to 3 Weston Hill Road. It is envisioned that the corridor will be publicly accessible and provide an opportunity to develop a vital pedestrian link between the residential subdivisions east of 2 Pawleena Road and the township.

1. The Commission accepts there is a demonstrated demand for additional General Business zoned land in a centralised location in proximity to the existing Sorell activity centre. It accepts that opportunities for the commercial expansion of the township are limited as alternative sites are either substantially developed or poorly connected.
2. The Commission is persuaded that the subject site is suitably located and well connected to the established activity centre. Further, the Commission accepts the application of the General Business Zone would provide for a complementary range of retail and commercial activity and would provide for space for large format retail and bulky good demand which is not able to be accommodated elsewhere in the township.
3. The Commission notes there is currently vacant General Business zoned land on the northern side of Dubs and Co Dive. However, the Commission is persuaded that this land will likely provide for future mixed-use development and is unable to accommodate the identified demand for large format retail.
4. The Commission notes 2 Pawleena Road (folio of the Register 61/654) is an irregular shaped lot that includes a thin strip of land to the north adjacent to Pawleena Road, between the existing Low Density Residential and Open Space zones. The narrow dimension of this land is constrained by Pawleena Road and the creek and is an isolated strip of land not suitable for use or development consistent with the General Business Zone purpose statements. The Commission is satisfied that this northern portion of the site should be zoned Open Space, reflecting a rational minor expansion of the existing adjoining Open Space zone. Accordingly, the draft amendment should be modified as shown in Attachment A.
5. The Commission otherwise agrees with the planning authority's justification for the proposed application of the Open Space Zone in the draft amendment.

1. The relevant regional land use strategy is the Southern Tasmania Regional Land Use Strategy 2010-2035 (regional strategy).
2. The applicant's report dated 6 December 2024 submitted that the draft amendment is consistent with relevant policies in the regional strategy, noting that:

The amendment will address the shortfall in available General Business land in the locality (as outlined in the Economic Impact/Retail Assessment). > > The amendment will consolidate / assist with a one-centre strategy for Sorell (rather than expanding the centre to Sorell east). > > The amendment will facilitate future retail development to fill an existing goods/services gap in the township. > > Represent the only feasible locations to accommodate additional General Business land within the township. (p5-6).

3. In the Location iQ report submitted with the application dated 6 December 2024, the author submitted the following:

1. The Subject Development is well-aligned with the Strategy and the specific regional policies pertaining to Activity Centres. The Strategy emphasises that Activity Centres are more than just retail and commercial precincts, and the subject development reflects this - as a multifunctional and accessible centre (AC1.1), with a focus on employment, retail, and commercial uses.
2. The development will be a well-planned mixed-use centre that provides high-quality amenities and leverages excellent transport links to the broader region (AC1.2 and AC1.5).
3. With reference to AC1.3, the site would not represent an out-of-centre development, given it forms a natural extension of the existing Business Centre zone (to the immediate west). This would also help to revitalise and strengthen the retail offering within Sorell (AC1.4 & AC1.8).
4. The proposed range of uses, layout, built-form and design of the development would be at the forefront of contemporary trends and comparable developments throughout Australia (aligning with AC1.5 - 1.6).
5. Overall, the subject development aligns with the Southern Tasmanian Regional Land Use Strategy and its emphasis on well-planned, vibrant, and accessible regional activity centres that cater to a range of functions and services, integrating seamlessly with the existing urban fabric and strengthening the local community.'(p 22)

1. At the hearing and in the planning authority's report supporting the draft amendment dated 17 December 2024, the planning authority responded to policies MRH 2.1 and MRH 2.2 relating to flooding, stating development in the flood-prone area adjacent to the rivulet will require mitigation and accordingly all residential and commercial use or development will require assessment against the provisions of the Flood-Prone Areas Hazard Code under the SPPs.
2. The planning authority submitted under the existing zoning, development on the site for residential use would be limited to 1.4ha of the land. Alternatively (if rezoned to Business/Commercial), other mitigation strategies may be explored, such as filling part of the site, constructing retaining walls or barriers or constructing suspended slab construction where flood path is maintained under buildings may be considered and assessed accordingly. Flood depth, velocity and hazard are discussed in further detail below.
3. The planning authority further submitted the draft amendment was consistent with ROS and 1.5, P1 1 and 1.1, LUTI 1, 1.1, 1.2 and 1.9 under the regional strategy.
4. The planning authority provided the following about activity centres:

AC 1.2: The proposal will support a broad range of uses across a broader GBZ. > > AC 1.3: The site is not out-of-centre, rather it is an extension of an existing centre. > > AC 1.6: (in part) The site specific provisions support an appropriate mix of uses via establishing a small precinct focused on larger-floor area retailing and other uses that typically require large floor area. This supports the existing strip-retail character of Gordon Street, which is one of smaller scale retail and food services uses predominately in converted dwellings. The character of Cole Street is a mix of larger floor area sites (Mitre 10, Gateway Plaza, Sorell Plaza, Zap) and smaller retail and food services uses..... > > AC1.8: The proposal can complement the existing General Business Zone through accommodating large floor area retailing which along with the two existing plazas are car dependent land uses. Traditional, more pedestrian centred development will continue within the existing General Business Zone. > > AC1.9: Existing GBZ standards encourage active street frontages and this would apply to all three street frontages. With larger-floor area retailing, the capacity for active street frontages is limited as entry points are less (on a ratio to floor area) and built form differs. The frontages of 2 Pawleena Road are well suited to landscaping to provide an aesthetically pleasing environment and avoid parking domination of the streetscape. > > AC 1.11: (in part) The spatial extent of the General Business Zone has been reduced, as has the amount of vacant or under-utilised land available for retail and other services..... > > .....A reasonable view is that the planning scheme does not provide for a 10-15 year supply of developable land consistent with AC 1.11. > > AC 3.1: Integration of the three sites via a rivulet crossing together with development of the open space improves walking and wheeling through the activity centre and township.

5. In its submission dated 21 July 2025, the planning authority referred to the recent amendments to the regional strategy and how this will facilitate approval of a proposed K-12 catholic education development and industrial land use in land within the Sorell township.

1. The Commission agrees with the planning authority that the proposed zoning changes are generally consistent with the regional strategy, but not in relation to the proposed SSQs in the draft amendment. The Commission finds that the draft amendment, in conjunction with the applicable SPP Code provisions, do not provide sufficient controls:
   • to encourage large format or bulky goods retail uses at 2 Pawleena Road and provide for small scale mixed use development at 3 Weston Hill Road
   • to guide staging to ensure and facilitate connectivity across the site
   • to ensure public safety and amenity adjacent to the rivulet, and
   • manage natural flood function.
2. These issues were discussed extensively at the hearing, and they arise due to the site's proximity to the existing Sorell activity centre and its exposure to the rivulet's flooding hazard.
3. The Commission is satisfied that the potential new SAP (as discussed above), which replaces the proposed SSQs in the draft amendment, provides adequate provisions to address the relevant matters. The Commission is satisfied that a modified draft amendment which incorporates the SAP with the proposed zone changes would be consistent with the regional strategy.

1. The relevant strategic plan is the Sorell Council Strategic Plan 2019 -2029 (strategic plan).
2. The applicant's supporting report identifies that the strategic plan acknowledges Sorell as one of Tasmania's fastest growing municipalities, with recent population growth exceeding state averages. Residential growth within the municipality has resulted in demand on infrastructure and community services.
3. The applicant identifies that Objective 1 - To Facilitate Regional Growth and Objective 2 - Responsible Stewardship and a Sustainable Organisation are relevant to the proposal.
4. The applicant submits that the draft amendment furthers these objectives by providing for specific retail opportunities and community services through a mix of commercial use and development. This development in turn will provide localised employment opportunities and increased business investment to meet the needs of residents.
5. The planning authority made no specific references to its strategic plan, however, its supporting report and hearing submissions were consistent with the applicant's observations.

1. The Commission is satisfied the draft amendment has regard to the strategic plan.

1. The rivulet bisects the site meandering between the boundary of 3 Western Hill Road and 2 Pawleena Road. The rivulet and surrounding land are subject to the C12.0 Flood-Prone Areas Hazard Code and C7.0 Natural Assets Code's waterway and coastal protection area overlay.
2. The Commission invited the State Emergency Service (SES) to review the draft amendment and attend the hearing in a letter dated 26 March 2025.
3. In response, the SES provided a submission dated 16 June 2025 raising concern about the site's exposure to flooding and its implications for future development. The SES stated:

Development over or in the waterway does not accord with current best practice for flood risk management, and the H5 flood hazard on the subject land poses a safety risk to the future development and its users. > > Any amendments to the LPS to facilitate commercial use and development on the site need to ensure that the risks associated with this flood hazard can be effectively managed irrespective of the nature of the use and development. This could be through a series of complimentary amendments to zoning, retention of the current Flood Prone Hazard Areas Overlay, and amendment of the current Waterway and coastal protection area overlay to encompass the entire extent of the modelled 1% AEP Defined Flood Event on the subject site. > > There may be alternative sites in the Sorell town centre not exposed to a significant flood hazard and adjacent to existing commercial development that may be more suitable for rezoning to the GBZ to achieve the desired future outcome of the proposal.

4. The SES submission also noted they were aware of issues in other locations where development had occurred adjacent to waterways, including Northgate Shopping Centre abutting Humphreys Rivulet, Kingston Plaza abutting Whitewater Creek and Eastlands Shopping Centre abutting the Kangaroo Bay Rivulet.
5. The planning authority in its submission dated 21 July 2025 referred to the SES submission and stated flood risk could be managed. The planning authority disputed SES's statement that there were other more appropriate sites (for the commercial expansion of the Sorell activity centre) due to their constraints but acknowledged there were potential infill opportunities.
6. The applicant's submission dated 21 July 2025 stated that the flood risk on the site was well understood. They provided a response from AD Design and Consulting, which submitted that any changes to the topography (i.e. form fill or retaining walls etc) would be assessed as part of a future development application and considered against both the planning scheme and Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience (AIDR) Handbook 7.
7. The submission from AD Design and Consulting acknowledged there were flooding issues reported at the locations mentioned in the SES submission, but stated a degree of caution was required when comparing these examples to the subject site as they were likely a result of development at a time when flood risk was not well understood.
8. At the hearing Mr Chris Irvine for SES submitted that the SES flood mapping and the planning authority's Entura mapping largely correlated with each other for the site. The key areas of concern from SES's perspective were ensuring future development will not compromise natural flood function of the rivulet and providing for development that responds to the natural flood function of the rivulet.
9. Mr Irvine stated that the site provided an important flood function on that part of the land which the SES considered a flood plain. Mr Irvine raised concern about the potential upstream flood impacts associated with fill and water displacement.
10. Mr Irvine further confirmed that the site could be developed with appropriate consideration of the flood plain function. However, while any future fill on the site would need be assessed against the requirements of the Flood-Prone Areas Hazard Code, that alone would not be sufficient to ensure a good planning outcome.
11. At the hearing Mr Norman from AD Design and Consulting for the applicant, submitted that the spatial extent of the "H5" hazard level in the available SES mapping was accepted by all parties. He further submitted that hydrological modelling would be undertaken in any case as part assessing future use or development on the site and acknowledged that fill does not always work. He submitted that any future report would be required to address the provisions of the Flood-Prone Areas Hazard Code.

1. The Commission accepts there is a substantial flood risk on parts of the site which is reflected in both the SES and Entura mapping and delineated by the "H5" areas. The Commission notes the difference between the two data sets is comparatively similar and the Entura mapping is accepted by the SES as suitable.
2. The Commission accepts Mr Irvine's submission that parts of the site are within an established flood plain and that ensuring the natural flood function of the rivulet is not compromised is important to manage impacts to property and people on surrounding land upstream and downstream of the site.
3. Given the location of the rivulet on the site and the identified flood risk, it is imperative that future development is appropriately located and mitigated to ensure it does not compound flooding issues on adjoining land. The Commission is not persuaded the Flood-Prone Areas Hazard Code standards will be able to adequately address the offsite upstream and downstream impacts of the rivulet which may occur because of future development on the site.
4. The Commission finds that additional controls are required for the draft amendment to adequately address flood risk and protect the flood function of the site in relation to the rivulet.
5. The Commission is satisfied that the provisions in the potential new SAP will adequately address and manage these matters, in combination with the underlying Business Commercial and Open Space zones which form part of the modified amendment.

State Policy on the Protection of Agricultural Land 2000

1. In the applicant's report dated 6 December 2024 each of the eleven State Policy on the Protection of Agricultural Land 2000 (PAL Policy) principles were addressed individually. The applicant submitted that the land was within the regional strategy's Urban Growth Boundary and currently zoned for residential development.
2. The applicant further noted that the land was not included in the agricultural land mapping project and is not suitable for agricultural use or development.
3. In the planning authority's supporting report dated 17 December 2024, it submitted that PAL Policy was not applicable.

1. In the applicant's report dated 6 December 2024 the applicant submitted that there is appropriate scope to control any potential biodiversity or water quality impacts at the development assessment stage. No changes are proposed to planning provisions that are in place to protect the coastal zone.
2. In the planning authority's supporting report dated 17 December 2024 it submitted:

The site is within 1,000m of the coast and is subject to the policy. As the site is within an urban area the proposal would not conflict with the many and varied policy statements in the SCP.

1. In the applicant's report dated 6 December 2024, the applicant submitted that any future development application for the land regardless of the zoning would be required to detail appropriate water management, through connection to services and appropriate stormwater management practices, consistent with this Policy.
2. In the planning authority's supporting report dated 17 December 2024 it submitted:

The proposed amendment per se would not result in an increase in sediment transport to surface waters. Any future planning permits issued for developments in the subject area will require that appropriate water quality management measures are put in place at the time of works.

1. In the applicant's report dated 6 December 2024, the applicant submitted the SPP codes:

...deal in detail with the relevant matters (noise and air quality) and the assessment of the submitted application can be undertaken against the appropriate use and development Standards. The proposed amendment is not considered affected by the other NEPMS.

2. In the planning authority's supporting report dated 17 December 2024, it submitted that regarding Principle 5 of the NEPMs, there were no known issues on the property.

1. The Commission is persuaded that the site is not prime agricultural land and that the draft amendment is consistent with the PAL Policy.
2. The Commission finds that the Coastal Policy and the Water Policy are relevant to the draft amendment.
3. The Commission finds that both Policies would be adequately addressed through future development applications.
4. The Commission finds the draft amendment is not inconsistent with any of the NEPMs and that no other State Policies are relevant to the draft amendment.

1. In the applicant's report dated 6 December 2024, the applicant stated that the draft amendment was consistent with the Schedule 1 Objectives.
2. In the planning authority's supporting report dated 17 December 2024, the planning authority provided a submission addressing each objective in Part 1 and Part 2. The planning authority submitted the draft amendment would promote sustainable development as it would maintain buffers to the rivulet.

1. The Commission is satisfied that the proposal would provide for economic growth, social benefits and local employment opportunities in a location that would meet the expanding commercial demand for the anticipated future growth in Sorell. However, the Commission finds that as certified, the draft amendment, in relation to managing localised flooding issues (upstream and downstream flood function), in conjunction with the potential impact on the existing businesses in Sorell would not:

(a) to promote the sustainable development of natural and physical resources and the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity; and

(b) to provide for the fair, orderly and sustainable use and development of air, land and water.

1. The Commission finds that, on balance, the draft amendment does not further the objectives set out in Schedule 1 of the Act.
2. The Commission is however satisfied that application of the potential new SAP to the site, shown in Attachment A, in combination with application of the General Business Zone and Open Space Zone, addresses these matters and will facilitate a good planning outcome for the site and the Sorell township. The Commission is satisfied that this modified approach furthers the objectives of the Act.

1. The Commission rejects the draft amendment under section 40N(1)(c) for the reasons discussed above.
2. The Commission, in accordance with section 40N(1)(c)(i), directs the planning authority to provide a substitute draft amendment including:
   1. Application of the General Business Zone and Open Space Zone as shown in Attachment A; and
   2. Insertion of the SOR-S6.0 Sorell Business and Rivulet Interface Specific Area Plan and associated map amendments as shown in Attachment A.

Substitute draft amendment to the Tasmanian Planning Scheme - Sorell.

1. Amend the planning scheme map to apply the General Business and Open Space zones at 3 Weston Hill Road, Sorell folio of the Register 239252/1, 5 Cole Street, Sorell folio of the Register 230862/1 and 2 Pawleena Road, Sorell folios of the Register 52621/1, 61/654 and 222468/1,

1. Amend the planning scheme map to add the outline and notation of the area contained in the SOR-S6.0 Sorell Business and Rivulet Interface Specific Area Plan, to apply to the following:
   • 3 Weston Hill Road, Sorell folio of the Register 239252/1
   • 5 Cole Street, Sorell folio of the Register 230862/1
   • 2 Pawleena Road, Sorell folios of the Register 52621/1, 61/654 and 222468/1

1. Insert SOR-S6.0 Sorell Business and Rivulet Interface Specific Area Plan into the Sorell Local Provisions Schedule, as follows:

SOR-S6.0 Sorell Business and Rivulet Interface Specific Area Plan

The purpose of the Sorell Business and Rivulet Interface Specific Area Plan is:

To encourage development of large format or bulky goods retail uses at Precinct B and small scale mixed use development at Precinct A.

To facilitate the planned commercial expansion of the site to integrate with the existing activity centre.

To provide for future development that does not compromise natural flood function of the rivulet.

To provide for development that responds to the natural flood function of the rivulet.

To provide for future development that is located and/or designed to promote pedestrian amenity adjacent to the rivulet.

The specific area plan applies to the area of land designated as Sorell Business and Rivulet Interface Specific Area Plan on the overlay maps and in Figure SOR-S6.1.

In the area of land this plan applies to, the provisions of the specific area plan are in addition to, or modification of, the provisions of:

(a) General Business Zone;

(b) Open Space Zone; and

(c) Flood-Prone Areas Hazard Code,

Precinct A, shown on an overlay map as SOR-S6.3.1 and in Figure SOR-S6.2.

(a) to provide for small scale mixed use development;

(b) to facilitate the planned commercial expansion of the site to integrate with the Sorell activity centre;

(c) to facilitate pedestrian and vehicle connectivity between Precinct A and Precinct B;

(d) to ensure future development does not compromise the natural flood function of the rivulet;

(e) to provide for development which responds to the flood risk relevant to the site and does not compound external flooding impacts; and

(f) to promote pedestrian amenity adjacent to the rivulet and to ensure pedestrian safety and amenity outcomes in the shared open space.

Precinct B, shown on an overlay map as SOR-S6.3.2 and in Figure SOR-S6.2.

(a) to provide for development of large format and/ bulky goods retail uses;

(b) to facilitate the planned commercial expansion of the site to integrate with the existing activity centre;

(c) to facilitate pedestrian connectivity between Precinct B and Precinct C and ensure pedestrian and vehicle connectivity between Precinct A and Precinct B;

(d) to ensure future development does not compromise the natural flood function of the rivulet;

(e) to provide for development which responds to the flood risk relevant to the site and do not compound external flooding impacts; and

(f) to promote pedestrian amenity adjacent to the rivulet and to ensure pedestrian safety and amenity outcomes in the shared open space.

Precinct C, shown on an overlay map as SOR-S6.3.3 and on Figure SOR-S6.2.

(a) to facilitate the planned commercial expansion of the site to integrate with the Sorell activity centre;

(b) to facilitate pedestrian and vehicle connectivity between Precinct B and Precinct C;

(c) to ensure future development does not compromise the natural flood function of the rivulet;

(d) to provide for development which responds to the flood risk relevant to the site and does not compound external flooding impacts; and

(e) to promote pedestrian amenity adjacent to the rivulet and pedestrian safety and amenity outcomes in the shared open space.

SOR-S6.4.1 In this specific area plan, unless the contrary appears:

means the area shown as Precinct A in Figure SOR-S6.2.

means the area shown as Precinct B in Figure SOR-S6.2.

means the area shown as Precinct C in Figure SOR-S6.2.

This clause is a modification of the qualifications for Bulky Goods Sales and General Retail and Hire use classes in General Business Zone - clause 15.2 Use Table.

If Precinct B, a gross floor area of not less than 450m2 per tenancy.

If Precinct B, a gross floor area of not less than 450m2 per tenancy.

This clause is in addition to General Business Zone - clause 15.3 Use Standards.

That uses listed as Discretionary in Precinct B are consistent with the Local Area Objectives.

Bulky Goods Sales and General Retail and Hire uses must not compromise or distort the Sorell activity centre, having regard to:

(a) the extent that the proposed use complements or broadens the existing commercial or retail offering within the locality;

(b) the need for smaller tenancies to be co-located with other uses in the precinct; and

(c) any relevant local area objectives.

SOR-S6.7 Development Standards for Buildings and Works

This clause is in addition to General Business Zone - clause 15.4 Development Standards for Buildings and Works.

(a) do not cause an unreasonable impact on the amenity and use of the adjoining Open Space Zone; and

(b) minimises opportunities for crime and anti-social behaviour.

Buildings, excluding for pedestrian or vehicle access, must have a setback from the Open Space Zone of not less than:

(a) 10m in Precinct A and C; and

(b) 15m in Precinct B.

Buildings must be sited to not cause an unreasonable impact on the amenity of land within the Open Space Zone, having regard to:

(a) the extent of any overshadowing and reduction in sunlight;

(b) crime prevention or deterrence measures on the site, such as avoidance of concealment and entrapment spaces;

(c) provision of passive surveillance of public spaces;

(d) minimisation of visual impacts caused by the apparent scale, bulk or proportions of the building when viewed from the Open Space Zone; and

(e) any relevant local area objectives.

SOR-S6.7.2 - Development Standards for Buildings and Works - Connectivity.

This clause is in addition to General Business Zone - clause 15.4 Development Standards for Buildings and Works.

To provide connectivity within the Sorell Business and Rivulet Interface site and between Precincts through vehicle and pedestrian linkages and infrastructure.

Road and walkway connections must be provided between Precinct A and B to allow for movement of pedestrians and vehicles between the precincts, prior to commencement of a new use in Precinct B.

Pedestrian and vehicle connectivity to be provided having regard to:

(a) vehicle and pedestrian safety;

(b) suitability of existing connections;

(c) enabling easy and efficient use of the area; and

(d) any advice from the Road Authority.

Road and walkway connections must be provided between Precinct B and C to allow for movement of pedestrians and vehicles between the precincts, prior to commencement of a new use in Precinct C.

Pedestrian and vehicle connectivity to be provided having regard to:

(a) the nature and use of the development;

(b) vehicle and pedestrian safety;

(c) suitability of existing connections;

(d) enabling easy and efficient use of the area; and

(e) any advice from the Road Authority.

Flood-Prone Areas Hazard Code - clause C12.6.1 Development Standards for Building and Works, General Business Zone - clause 15.4 Development Standards for Building and Works, and Open Space Zone - clause 29.4 Development Standards for Building and Works.

That building and works within the H5 flood hazard class area does not compromise the natural flood function of the rivulet or compound upstream or downstream flooding impacts on adjacent land and public infrastructure.

Buildings and works must not be located within the H5 flood hazard class area shown in Figure SOR-S6.4.

Building and works within the H5 flood hazard class area shown in Figure SOR-S6.4 must not compromise the natural flood function of the rivulet, having regard to:

(a) the type, of, scale and intended duration of the development;

(b) the level of risk of upstream and downstream impacts on adjacent land or public infrastructure;

(c) whether any potential impacts require specific hazard reduction or protection measures;

(d) any advice from a State authority, regulated entity or council;

(e) the advice contained in a flood hazard report prepared by a suitably qualified person; and

(f) any relevant local area objectives.

Figure SOR-S6.1 The Sorell Business and Rivulet Interface Specific Area Plan Area as required by clause SOR-S6.2.1.

Figure SOR-S6.2 The Sorell Business and Rivulet Interface Specific Area Plan Precincts as required by clause SOR-S6.3.1, SOR-S6.3.2 and SOR-S6.3.3.

Figure SOR-S6.3 The Sorell Business and Rivulet Interface Specific Area Plan as required by clause SOR-6.3 Local Area Objectives.

Figure SOR-S6.4 The Sorell Business and Rivulet Interface Specific Area Plan H5 Area as required by clause SOR-S6.7.4.