Invermay subdivision approved by Launceston council after lengthy debate

Neighbours were vehemently opposed to the proposal, with concerns listed including drainage, overshadowing, increased traffic, a loss of amenity and the potential for further infill development.

Another issue was that the lot was too small for two dwellings - something council officers acknowledged but said had been approved by the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (TASCAT).

A proposal to build an additional two-storey dwelling at 23 Lytton Street, Invermay was tabled at the council's September 7 meeting after being rejected in 2021.

The decision was appealed to TASCAT in 2022, and the council's decision was upheld on the basis the original designs did not provide the required amount of private open space.

TASCAT allowed the proponents to resubmit a revised application to the council.

Council officers recommended the council approve the new application, however there were discrepancies in measurements between the title boundary which measured 15.23m and dimensions in the plans, which totalled 15.36m.

READ MORE: Southern Cross Care Tasmania back pays $5.9 million to underpaid staff

This prompted lengthy discussion around the council table about whether they could approve the application with this in mind, even though boundary disputes were a matter for courts not councillors.

After an intermission where council planners met with the developers, an amended motion was tabled that required the developers to engage a licensed surveyor to measure the title boundary, and then alter the dimensions of the new building to fit within the required envelope.

Councillors Susie Cai, Tim Walker and Dr George Razay were against the application, with Cr Cai saying she could not approve the development without knowing the final dimensions of the structure.

READ MORE: More AFL games, not less: Northern leaders respond to stadium inquiry

Cr Walker said the application, which relied on several discretionary approvals, was a "Trojan horse" that would lead to further, similar applications.

"I can see that we may struggle in a tribunal, but I don't think our job here today is to try and decide what a tribunal might or might not say in regards to this," Cr Walker said.

"My particular interpretation of the planning scheme is that this was too close to the wind as far as some of those discretions go."

"I'm not convinced that the performance criteria are being met."

Councillor Alan Harris, who was content to approve the application without the amendment, said the difference would be "the length of his pen" and the city was in dire need of housing.

"I hope you understand that is not a great deal of distance," Cr Harris said.

"If we are in fact, approving this today, there is no doubt in my mind that this will be used for others to say 'you did it down there, what about me here?'"

READ MORE: Bloody nose, shattered glass: Court hears of New Years' party gone wrong

"However, it is up to those individual landowners to say 'no, I like my backyard'. No one is going to force them to sell their land."

Other councillors including Alex Britton spoke in favour of approving the application with that condition, particularly as the issue identified by TASCAT had been dealt with.

"There was a small issue that we've now made amendment to," Cr Britton.

READ MORE: 'It's a gem': Bridport cafe owners to sell up

"In my opinion, if this does go ahead, those issues will be dealt with. If that is indeed the cancellation of it eventually, that's fine.

"I don't think that we should leave this room now sending it back to a tribunal where it is most likely going to lose and we're just going to spend ratepayers' money, in my opinion, irresponsibly."

The application was approved 8-3, with Crs Cai, Razay and Walker voting against.

Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content: