TASMANIAN lawyers have spoken out against moves to slap planning appeal losers with legal costs. The government is developing legislation to model planning tribunal fees on Supreme Court costs. Low or no-cost proceedings at the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal (RMPAT) would instead shift to see development appeal losers pay some or all of their opponent's expenses. Treasurer Peter Gutwein argued the policy would stop ‘‘front groups’’ bent on stopping important projects from launching frivolous third-party appeals. ‘‘There have been major hold-ups with significant projects and it’s clear that the system needs an overhaul,’’ Mr Gutwein said. ‘‘Our plan shows that Tasmania a is open for business and that investment will not be held hostage by protest groups.’’ But Tasmanian Law Society president Anthony Mihal said effective measures were already in place to deter unmeritorious or vexatious appeals, and to punish those who behave improperly at appeals. Mr Mihal said there was no clear evidence to support the proposed change. ‘‘We don’t know of any groups bringing inappropriate appeals who aren’t being caught by current measures,’’ he said. ‘‘If there is information or data to support the government’s claims anti-development groups are abusing the appeal process, the society would like to see it.’’ Mr Mihal warned the change was a double-edged sword that could deter developers. ‘‘If it becomes too difficult for people to bring appeals against local council decisions it will put a brake on small-scale development," ’ he said. ‘‘And it will deter regular appellants from speaking out against developments in the face of expensive expert witnesses and lawyers.’’ Mr Gutwein said the Planning Reform Taskforce would consult widely on the legislation. Mr Mihal said the state’s lawyers were at the coal face of the tribunal system and would like to be included in those discussions.
TASMANIAN lawyers have spoken out against moves to slap planning appeal losers with legal costs.
The government is developing legislation to model planning tribunal fees on Supreme Court costs.
Low or no-cost proceedings at the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal (RMPAT) would instead shift to see development appeal losers pay some or all of their opponent's expenses.
Treasurer Peter Gutwein argued the policy would stop ‘‘front groups’’ bent on stopping important projects from launching frivolous third-party appeals.
‘‘There have been major hold-ups with significant projects and it’s clear that the system needs an overhaul,’’ Mr Gutwein said.
‘‘Our plan shows that Tasmania a is open for business and that investment will not be held hostage by protest groups.’’
But Tasmanian Law Society president Anthony Mihal said effective measures were already in place to deter unmeritorious or vexatious appeals, and to punish those who behave improperly at appeals.
Mr Mihal said there was no clear evidence to support the proposed change.
‘‘We don’t know of any groups bringing inappropriate appeals who aren’t being caught by current measures,’’ he said.
‘‘If there is information or data to support the government’s claims anti-development groups are abusing the appeal process, the society would like to see it.’’
Mr Mihal warned the change was a double-edged sword that could deter developers.
‘‘If it becomes too difficult for people to bring appeals against local council decisions it will put a brake on small-scale development," ’ he said.
‘‘And it will deter regular appellants from speaking out against developments in the face of expensive expert witnesses and lawyers.’’
Mr Gutwein said the Planning Reform Taskforce would consult widely on the legislation.
Mr Mihal said the state’s lawyers were at the coal face of the tribunal system and would like to be included in those discussions.
