Opponents to the Cambria Green planning scheme amendment have provided their closing submissions to the Tasmanian Planning Commission, focusing on discrepancies in letters of consent.
Shaun McElwaine, on behalf of Cambria Green Agriculture and Tourism Management, provided a closing statement on September 6 in which he discounted large portions of opponents' evidence from earlier hearings.
The other parties were able to provided theirs by September 13.
One of the representors, Dr Peggy James, said the commission should not further consider the planning scheme amendment as some letters of consent from Cambria Green directors could not be considered valid, and any commission hearing would be open to challenge on the grounds of error.
Dr James said the testimony of Cambria chief executive Donald Hu showed he did not actually know who signed the letters, he was unable to accurately remember or explain important aspects of the letters or signing process, and that no one had actually admitted to signing the letters.
- Validity of landholder consent quizzed at planning tribunal hearing for Cambria Green
- Tasmanian Planning Commission says further evidence required from Cambria Green proponents
- Keith Breheny, Rob Churchill guilty over Cambria code of conduct complaint
- Further details on Cambria Green revealed ahead of planning commission decision
"I submit that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Kejing Liu has signed the letters of 'consent', and that whatever Kejing Liu's authority, they cannot be considered valid," she wrote.
She also said that due to errors, even if Mr Liu had signed it could not be considered valid.
Greens leader Cassie O'Connor also aired her concerns.
"We have formed the view, on the evidence, that Glamorgan Spring Bay Council erred in approving the assessment of the Specific Area Plan draft amendment and therefore, the proposal should not have progressed to the Tasmanian Planning Commission for assessment," she wrote.
EDO Tasmania, on behalf of East Coast Alliance, said there was insufficient evidence that Shenglong Investments, one of the landowning companies, gave consent.
In Mr McElwaine's submission he discounted evidence brought up in the August 20 hearing, such as landowner permission, the omission of a certificate of title and various errors.
"... it should be concluded that there is no jurisdictional error that infects the ability of the TPC to discharge its statutory duty to conduct a hearing in relation to the representations," he wrote.
More information on iPlan.