Parliament Square Planning Permit Act 2012

The Act defines several key terms that lock the scope of the legislative intervention. Affected land means the land comprised in folios of the Register volume 156768 folios 1 and 2 under the Land Titles Act 1980 , two specific cadastral parcels. The planning permit is the identified permit number PLN-10-00495-01, as amended if at all under section 56 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPAA). This means the Act does not freeze the permit; it can still be amended, but only by the Minister acting as planning authority. The planning permit development is the project described as “Parliament Square” and includes any development or use referred to in the planning permit. The 2015 amendment added further permit: any permit (other than the planning permit itself), as amended if at all under LUPAA s 56, that is issued under LUPAA in respect of a substantially related development or use and is in effect. Substantially related development or use is defined as any development or use on the affected land other than the planning permit development, and any development or use on land adjoining the affected land that is substantially related to the planning permit development. This is a broad category: it can include new buildings, alterations, infrastructure, or any activity captured by the definition of “development or use” in LUPAA, provided it relates to the Parliament Square project. The relevant date is the date on which the Bill for this Act was first tabled in Parliament , a fixed historical date that determines which appeal parties qualify for cost reimbursement. A specified person is a person, other than the applicant for the planning permit, who was a party at the relevant date to an appeal in respect of the planning permit that had not been finally determined as at that date. This creates a closed class of beneficiaries for section 11. The Authority means the Sullivans Cove Waterfront Authority established under the repealed Sullivans Cove Waterfront Authority Act 2004. That body has been abolished, but references to its CEO in the planning permit are now treated as references to the Minister. The Heritage Register is the Tasmanian Heritage Register under the Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995. Place has the meaning given in that Act. Development or use cross-references the same term in LUPAA, which is itself a broad definition covering buildings, works, subdivision, and changes in land use. The Act does not create new definitions for these concepts; it borrows them from existing legislation, but overrides the application of that legislation.

The Act directly affects a narrow set of legal persons but has wide consequences for anyone with an interest in the affected land or surrounding area. The applicant for the planning permit , presumably the developer of Parliament Square , gains an immediate, unchallengeable permit and a single ministerial point of contact for all future approvals. The Minister for Planning (as at administration assignment in s 14, now likely the Minister responsible under the Administrative Arrangements Act 1990) is given sweeping personal powers: he or she can give any approval required by the permit or a further permit, can amend those permits, and can by order exclude land from those provisions (s 8A). Specified persons (parties to undetermined appeals at the relevant date) are the only private parties with a right to cost reimbursement, and even that is a debt owed by the Crown, not a right to stop the project. Purchasers and owners of the affected land retain the right to bring proceedings under s 9(3), which suggests the Act was drafted to allow a property owner to challenge actions that affect their title, but not third parties. The Heritage Council is compelled to remove heritage listings without normal process, and its future discretion over the removed places is conditioned on ministerial consent (s 12(2)-(3)). Planning authorities under LUPAA lose their role in respect of this project: the Minister is substituted for the planning authority for amendment purposes (s 8) and for approvals (s 7(2)-(3)). Neighbours, environmental groups, and other objectors who would normally have standing to appeal a planning permit or seek judicial review of a ministerial decision are stripped of that right unless they can show criminal conduct. The Crown in right of Tasmania binds itself (s 4), accepts liability for costs of specified persons (s 11), and gives up immunity from challenge only for criminal conduct or by land owners. The Act also affects any person who might seek to argue inconsistency with other legislation: section 5 ensures this Act prevails. The group most affected but not explicitly mentioned is the public: heritage protections are removed; the normal checks and balances of the planning system are bypassed; and the project proceeds without the ordinary opportunities for public participation, contest, or appeal.

The Act creates few duties and concentrates rights in the Minister. The Minister’s right under s 7(1) to give any approval, consent or permission required by the planning permit or a further permit is described as “authorised” and is not limited to any particular criteria. It is not expressed to be subject to merit review or conditions beyond those in the permit. The Minister is also empowered to amend the planning permit and any further permit under s 56 of LUPAA, acting as the planning authority (s 8). The Minister may delegate these functions and powers (s 10) but cannot delegate the power of delegation itself. The Minister may also by order exclude any part of the affected land or adjoining land from the operation of sections 7 and 8 (s 8A(1)). This suggests that for some components the Minister may choose to allow normal processes to apply, but the power is unilateral and unreviewable. The duty of the Crown under s 11 is to reimburse costs of specified persons: it is a mandatory obligation, but limited to costs “reasonably incurred before the relevant date” and only for appeal proceedings under LUPAA that were undetermined as at that date. The Heritage Council’s duty is to amend the Heritage Register by permanently removing any place required to be destroyed or demolished to enable the planning permit development (s 12(1)). It also must not re-enter or make orders over such a place without the Minister’s written consent (s 12(2)-(3)). This is a positive duty, not a discretion. The right of a specified person under s 11 is a claim for costs, but it is not a right to challenge the permit or its implementation. The rights of purchasers and owners of affected land are preserved by s 9(3): they are not barred from bringing appeals, judicial review, declaratory judgments, or other proceedings in respect of things done under ss 7 or 8. This is a carve-out that likely reflects property law concerns about interfering with title rights. By contrast, no other person has a right to bring any such proceeding. The Governor’s right under s 13 is to make regulations, including creating offences (fine up to 50 penalty units, plus 10 per day for continuing offences). The regulations may also contain savings or transitional provisions. The Act does not create any duty on the developer to complete the project within a timeframe; it merely allows the permitted development to proceed “in accordance with, and subject to, the planning permit” (s 6(c), as amended). The 2015 amendment (s 6A(4)) clarifies that the planning permit and planning permit development are taken not to include any part that cannot be carried out because a substantially related development or use is being carried out under a further permit. This effectively allows the Minister to sever or re-define the scope of the original project without statutory constraint.

The Act itself does not create many penalties. The primary enforcement mechanism is the potential for regulations made by the Governor under s 13. Those regulations may create offences and prescribe fines of up to 50 penalty units, with an additional fine of up to 10 penalty units per day for a continuing offence (s 13(3)). No regulations have been indicated in the source, but the power exists. The Act does not contain any express prohibition on carrying out the development without a permit, because the permit is already deemed effective. There is no provision for enforcement orders, stop-work notices, or civil penalties within the Act itself. That does not mean the development is unregulated: the planning permit and any further permits will contain conditions, and breach of those conditions may be enforceable under LUPAA. However, the Act removes the ordinary enforcement pathway for third parties because they lose standing to appeal or seek review. The Minister is the person who approved the conditions and could presumably enforce them, but the Act does not create a specific enforcement duty. The liability shield in s 7(4) protects any person or body that would have been required to give an approval from incurring liability because of anything done or omitted by the Minister under s 7(1). This means that if the Minister gives an approval that later proves defective, the original approval body is not liable. The Minister presumably bears no personal liability either, as the Act does not create a statutory cause of action. The only enforcement right preserved for private parties is in s 9(2): if anything done under ss 7 or 8 has involved or been affected by criminal conduct, then the bar on proceedings does not apply. That is a high threshold , it requires actual criminal conduct, not just a planning breach. A person who witnesses bribery, fraud, or other criminal acts in connection with the approvals could potentially bring proceedings, but even then, the Act only says s 9(1) does not apply; it does not create a private right of action. Enforcement would depend on the general criminal law. The practical effect is that the Act creates a regulatory vacuum: the Minister has broad discretion with no duty to consult, no merit review, and limited appeal rights. The only real enforcement lever is political accountability, which is not a legal penalty.

Section 5 is the paramount clause: if any provision of this Act is inconsistent with any other Act, planning scheme, special planning order, interim order or any other instrument, this Act prevails to the extent of the inconsistency. This is a standard override provision, but it is broad , it covers planning schemes made under LUPAA, orders under the Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995, and even other Acts. For example, if the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 would normally require public notice and a right of appeal for a permit amendment, section 8 of this Act overrides those requirements because the Minister acts alone as planning authority. Section 6(b) expressly extinguishes all rights of appeal in relation to the planning permit, negating any appeal rights that would otherwise exist under LUPAA s 61. Section 6(c) says the planning permit development may proceed “notwithstanding any other Act, planning scheme, special planning order, interim order or any other instrument”. This overrides even conditions that might be imposed by other laws, except to the extent they are incorporated into the permit itself. The interaction with the Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995 is direct: s 12(1) requires the Heritage Register to be amended by permanently removing places that must be destroyed. This overrides the listing process and any protections under Part 4 of that Act. The Heritage Council cannot re-enter the place without the Minister’s consent (s 12(2)), and cannot make orders under the 1995 Act in respect of that place without the same (s 12(3)). That effectively terminates heritage protection for the affected features. The 2015 amendment added s 6A, which clarifies that nothing in this Act prevents applications for, or the issue of, further permits under LUPAA for substantially related developments or uses. This means the 1993 Act continues to operate for those related activities, but the Minister rather than the planning authority handles approvals and amendments under ss 7-8. Section 9(1) overrides the Judicial Review Act 2000 by barring orders or review under that Act in respect of things done under ss 7 or 8. It also overrides any other Act that might confer a right to a declaratory judgment or other proceedings. The Act does not purport to affect the Land Titles Act 1980 directly, but the affected land is defined by reference to it, so any dealings with the land remain subject to that Act. The Act also does not affect the operation of criminal laws generally (s 9(2) preserves challenges based on criminal conduct). Finally, the Act binds the Crown (s 4), so the Crown cannot rely on its own prerogative or statutory immunity to avoid the override provisions.

The Parliament Square Planning Permit Act 2012 was originally enacted as Act No. 48 of 2012. It received Royal Assent and commenced on that day (s 2). The source text reflects the version as at 12 April 2026, which includes amendments made by the Parliament Square Planning Permit Amendment Act 2015 (No. 35 of 2015). That amending Act received Royal Assent on 13 October 2015 and applied from that date. The 2015 amendment made several significant changes. It inserted the definition of “further permit”, “specified person”, and “substantially related development or use” into the interpretation section (s 3). It also amended the definition of “development or use” (changed from a direct reference to LUPAA to a cross-reference). It amended the definition of “planning permit development” by adding “and includes any development or use referred to in the planning permit”. It amended s 6(c) by adding the phrase “notwithstanding any other Act, planning scheme, special planning order, interim order or any other instrument”, which strengthens the override. It inserted a new section 6A, which confirms that the Act does not prevent applications for, or the issue or carrying out of, further permits for substantially related developments or uses. Section 6A(4) contains an important deeming provision: the planning permit and planning permit development are taken not to include any part that cannot be carried out because a substantially related development or use is being carried out under a further permit. This allows the scope of the original project to be reduced or redefined without formal amendment. Section 7 was amended to insert references to further permits, so that the Minister’s approval power extends to those permits. Section 8 was similarly amended to include further permits. A new section 8A was inserted, giving the Minister power to exclude parts of the affected land or adjoining land from the operation of ss 7 and 8 by order. Section 12(1) was amended to include a reference to further permits. No other amendment history is disclosed in the source. The Act has not been repealed and remains in force as a special legislative measure for a single project.

The source text does not name any specific cases, but the Act itself reveals the litigation context. The definition of “specified person” in s 3 refers to a person who is a party at the relevant date to an appeal in respect of the planning permit that has not been finally determined as at that date. This confirms that at least one appeal was pending when the Bill was tabled. Section 11 requires the Crown to reimburse legal costs and disbursements incurred by specified persons before the relevant date in relation to that appeal. That indicates that the appeal had progressed to the point of incurring costs. Section 6(b) extinguishes all rights of appeal in relation to the planning permit on commencement, which would have had the effect of terminating the pending appeal without a merits decision. Section 9 then blocks any further litigation in respect of actions under ss 7 or 8, except for criminal conduct or for purchasers/owners of the affected land. The cumulative effect is that the Act was designed to shut down an existing legal dispute and prevent any future challenges to the permit or subsequent approvals. The litigation likely involved the validity or conditions of the planning permit, possibly on heritage grounds given the s 12 override, or on procedural grounds under LUPAA. The Act does not provide for any appeal from the Minister’s decisions under ss 7 or 8, so there is no scope for judicial review unless the criminal conduct exception applies. The preservation of rights for purchasers and owners of affected land in s 9(3) is interesting: it suggests that a landowner might have had a proprietary interest that could not be extinguished without constitutional concerns. The Act does not specify what proceedings those owners could bring, but given the breadth of s 9(1), the only available proceedings would be those not barred , possibly for an injunction preventing trespass or for compensation. The Act does not create any statutory compensation mechanism for affected landowners beyond the s 11 cost reimbursement for specified persons. There is no indication in the source of any subsequent litigation testing the validity of the Act itself, but that is not surprising given the legislative override and the bar on proceedings.

Several provisions contain traps for the unwary. The definition of “specified person” in s 3 is limited to a party to an appeal that had not been finally determined as at the relevant date , that is, the date the Bill was first tabled. Anyone who became a party after that date, or whose appeal had already been determined, is not a specified person and has no right to cost reimbursement under s 11. The “relevant date” is not the date of commencement or the date of Royal Assent; it is a date that may be months earlier. The cost reimbursement under s 11 is also limited to costs “reasonably incurred before the relevant date”. Costs incurred after that date, even if related to the same appeal, are not recoverable. This creates a strict cut-off that may leave parties out of pocket. Section 9(3) preserves proceedings only for a “purchaser or an owner of any affected land”. That does not include a lessee, a mortgagee, or a neighbour whose property is adjacent but not part of the affected land. It also does not include a person with an easement or restrictive covenant unless they are also an owner. The phrase “any affected land” refers to the two specific folios defined in s 3, not to the wider area that may be affected by the development. Section 9(2) opens the door for challenges based on criminal conduct, but the provision says “any thing which has involved or has been affected by criminal conduct”. This requires the challenger to prove criminal conduct, which is a high evidentiary bar. It does not cover civil wrongs, regulatory breaches, or negligence. Section 7(2) deems references to the Chief Executive Officer of the Authority in the planning permit or a further permit to be references to the Minister. But the Authority was established under the repealed Act, so there is no CEO. This may create confusion about which conditions in the permit require ministerial sign-off. Section 8A allows the Minister to exclude any part of the affected land or adjoining land from ss 7 and 8 by order. The power is unilateral, with no requirement for consultation, notice, or reasons. That order can carve out land from ministerial control, potentially leaving it subject to normal planning processes , but it can also be used to bring land back under the Act if revoked? The Act does not say. Section 12(1) permanently removes places from the Heritage Register. “Permanently” appears in the text. The place cannot be re-entered without the Minister’s written consent (s 12(2)). But the Minister’s consent is not required to be exercised reasonably; it is a personal discretion. The Heritage Council loses all power to recommend re-entry. The 2015 amendment to s 6A(4) deems the planning permit not to include any part that is not capable of being carried out because a substantially related development or use is being carried out under a further permit. This could be used to delete aspects of the original approval without a formal amendment, potentially reducing environmental or heritage mitigation that was originally conditioned. Finally, the Act imposes no sunset clause. It remains in force indefinitely, so the Minister’s powers under ss 7 and 8 continue to be exercisable for the planning permit and any further permits. The project could be abandoned and restarted years later still under this legislative regime.

For any person or entity affected by the Act, compliance focuses on the planning permit and any further permits. The developer must carry out the planning permit development “in accordance with, and subject to, the planning permit” (s 6(c)). This means all conditions, drawings, and specifications in permit PLN-10-00495-01 must be observed. For any substantially related development or use (defined broadly), the developer must obtain a further permit under LUPAA. The application for such a permit is made under LUPAA, but the approval and amendment powers are exercised by the Minister under ss 7 and 8 of this Act. The Minister can give any approval required by the further permit, and is deemed the planning authority for its amendment. The developer should therefore apply to the relevant planning authority in the normal way, but any subsequent approvals and amendments will be handled by the Minister. The Minister may, by order under s 8A, exclude part of the land from the operation of ss 7 and 8. If such an order is made, the excluded land reverts to normal planning processes under LUPAA; the developer must comply with those processes for that part. The Heritage Council must comply with s 12: it must permanently remove any place or part of a place from the Heritage Register if that removal is required for the planning permit development. The developer should identify which features are to be destroyed and provide evidence to the Heritage Council to trigger the removal. After removal, the Heritage Council cannot re-enter the place or make orders without the Minister’s written consent. The Minister’s power to consent is discretionary; therefore, the developer may need to seek that consent if later wishing to re-list a site. The Minister must exercise powers under ss 7 and 8 personally or through a delegate (s 10). The Minister should ensure that any approval, consent, or permission given under s 7(1) is consistent with the terms of the planning permit or further permit. Section 7(3) provides that such approvals take effect as if given by the person or body originally required to give them. The Minister should also keep records of all approvals given to avoid disputes. The Crown must maintain a process for receiving claims for cost reimbursement under s 11 from specified persons. The claim must relate to legal costs and disbursements, including expert witness costs, that were reasonably incurred before the relevant date in relation to an appeal under LUPAA in respect of the planning permit. The person must meet the definition of “specified person” in s 3. The Crown should not pay costs incurred after the relevant date. For anyone wishing to challenge the Minister’s actions under ss 7 or 8, the only permitted avenues are: (a) if the action involved or was affected by criminal conduct; or (b) if the challenger is a purchaser or owner of the affected land. In either case, proceedings may be brought under the Judicial Review Act 2000, by way of declaratory judgment, or other action. However, the scope of such challenge is limited by the Act; the court may have to determine whether the criminal conduct exception applies. All other persons are barred from bringing proceedings. Therefore, compliance also means accepting that the Minister’s decisions under ss 7 and 8 have no ordinary avenue of review. The regulations under s 13 may impose additional obligations; those must be complied with if made. As of this version, no regulations are evident in the source text.