Public comment on the Draft Land Use Planning and Approvals Amendment (Major Projects) Bill 2020 closed on May 15 and once feedback has been incorporated the final bill is expected to be tabled in Parliament in August.

The draft bill has been controversial, drawing support from the building and construction sector but criticism and concern from groups such as the Greens, the Wilderness Society and the Tasmanian Conservation Trust.

University of Tasmania Professor of Human Geography and Planning Jason Byrne explains the draft bill.

Under the proposed Major Projects process, a proponent, council or the Minister for Planning can refer a development for consideration as a major project.

Dr Byrne said Tasmania needed a process to consider large-scale development proposals which were in the interest of the state.

"Other Australian states have similar planning processes in place," Dr Byrne said.

"Such projects can be very complex from a planning, engineering and economic perspective and often, though not always, will have significant environmental and social dimensions and consequences.

"They will require a high degree of coordination and may affect a large range of stakeholders, local governments and state government departments.

"Oftentimes such projects require complex social and environmental impact assessments.

"Due to the complexity of these types of assessments and the fact that many different pieces of government legislation may be involved - for example, heritage, environmental protection, Aboriginal heritage and planning - there is the potential for a major project to get bogged down in a raft of different approval and permitting processes."

Dr Byrne said examples of major projects in Tasmania were the Bridgewater Bridge or the development of a rapid transit system for Southern Tasmania, such as a light rail development.

"Such projects are usually, but not always, major infrastructure projects," he said.

He said it was possible large private developments could be declared as major projects if they satisfied certain criteria in the draft bill.

The draft bill seeks to amend the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act of 1993 to build on and eventually replace the Projects of Regional Significance process.

Introduced in January 2010, the PORS process has never been used.

The new process is intended to sit between the existing development application process and the Projects of State Significance process.

Dr Byrne said the draft bill would make a number of changes to the current planning scheme, some of which were substantial, including:

Once a project has been approved for consideration as a major project it will then be assessed by an independent panel, appointed by the TPC.

The Minister has no role in selecting the panel members.

Regulators - being the Heritage Council, TasWater, pipeline licencees within the meaning of the Gas Pipelines Act 2000, the Environmental Protection Authority, the Threatened Species and Private Land Conservation Section, and the Aboriginal Land Council - must inform the panel if a proposal ought to not proceed.

The bill directs that the panel must consist of, at a minimum, a member or delegate of the commission, a member from the local council where the project is located and an expert in the field of the major project.

"The panel ultimately has the power to approve a proposal with conditions or refuse a proposal and provide reasons for doing so," Dr Byrne said.

"The bill provides for the independent panel to exhibit a project, invite submissions from the public and other stakeholders and hold hearings and consider representations made at those hearings."

But Dr Byrne said one of the key issues was that the panel was responsible for both preparing the development assessment guidelines and then overseeing the assessment of the project against these guidelines.

"There is a risk here that potential bias, conflict of interest or a political agenda could be introduced, unintentionally or otherwise, if the panel is both formulating the guidelines and assessing the proposal," Dr Byrne said.

Dr Byrne said greater clarity around who was considered an expert for the purpose of being appointed to the panel and how the guidelines would be formulated was needed.

He also said the lack of an appeal process envisaged as part of the draft bill warranted greater attention.

"It is a serious oversight," Dr Byrne said.

"The lack of an appeals process could potentially erode public trust; could potentially undermine environmental and Aboriginal and European heritage; and reduces a planning decision to a matter of technical opinion rather than a matter of a democratically accountable process, taking us back to the planning systems of the 1950s and 1960s."

A government spokesperson said a decision of the panel could be appealed through a judicial review to the Supreme Court.

"This is consistent with other assessments carried out by delegated panels appointed by the TPC, such as in regard to planning scheme amendments and combined development applications and amendments," the spokesperson said.

"It is also consistent with the current PORS assessment process, which the Major Projects process seeks to replace."

Dr Byrne said the major beneficiary of the bill was developers.

"It will allow for a streamlined process meaning that development costs such as interest on finance can be reduced," he said.

"It will make the development approval process less complex and from the perspective of the state could mean that Tasmania becomes more attractive for large-scale developments."

Dr Byrne said the fact a developer could be given a "quick no" if their proposal was not viable was important.

"A lot of time and money can be wasted on projects that will never be likely to be approved," he said.

But Dr Byrne said the Major Projects process could potentially sideline local governments.

"Councils will lose the ability to refuse a proposal on planning grounds, they will only be consulted," Dr Byrne said.

"Local residents, who in principle are represented by local government, may find that their interests are also given less consideration if local governments are only consulted and do not have any decision-making capability.

"Community groups may also find that they have reduced ability to participate in the planning process, for example due to tight time frames for submissions or the complexity of the language involved.

"It is always challenging to balance the needs of one group of individuals against another so the process needs to be transparent and accountable and all stakeholders must have a reasonable opportunity to not only voice their concerns, but to have their concerns rigorously assessed and considered in a meaningful and appropriate way."

The government spokesperson said relevant councils would be represented on the panel, would be consulted during the eligibility process and would provide landowner consent should the proposal be located on council land.

"As the assessment is undertaken by an independent panel in conjunction with regulators, councillors will actually have greater capacity to act as advocates for their communities," the spokesperson said.

Dr Byrne said the draft bill had also raised questions as to how it would impact national parks and other protected areas.

"There is an existing process for the approval of development on Crown and that appears to be potentially circumvented by the bill," he said.

"The bill should be modified to include the Crown consent process, and to require that Crown land be given the same consideration as private land or local government land, because there is a risk that the Major Projects legislation could be a way to green-light development in national parks and protected areas that would otherwise not be permitted."

What do you think? Send us a letter to the editor: