Launceston ratepayers fork over thousands for planning appeals

The Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (TASCAT) heard appeals against 18 decisions made by the City of Launceston council in 2022 and 2023, at a cost of $294,797.45.

14 appeals were lodged by third parties and four were by the original applicants.

Three of the 18 appeals came after councillors voted against planning officers' recommendations, and two of these were later reversed at the tribunal.

These were decisions to refuse permits for developments at 112 Tamar Street, Launceston, which cost $31,949.58, and 108 Elphin Road, Launceston which cost $21,259.37.

Two other council decisions were reversed after appeal at the tribunal, however these were in line with planning officers' recommendations.

One was a decision to refuse an application to redevelop the former Birchalls site - which cost $23,054.38 - and another was the approval of an outbuilding at Audrey Road, St Leonards.

This was overturned by TASCAT, and cost $10,272.90.

A decision by councillors to refuse planning permission for a subdivision at 23 Lytton Street, Invermay ran contrary to planning officers' recommendations however this was upheld by the tribunal.

A revised subdivision was later approved by councillors, however this second decision was appealed to TASCAT and the matter is still under consideration.

To date the council has spent $38,308.38 across the two appeals.

The priciest were two appeals - heard jointly - lodged against a decision to grant a permit for the North East Rail Trail at Golconda, which cost $68,942.60.

The councillors' decision was ultimately upheld by TASCAT.

Two of the third party appeals, which cost $3053.60 and $2879.60 each, were withdrawn before the tribunal process went ahead.

Council officers noted the number of TASCAT appeals was 1.4 per cent of the 1267 planning applications approved by the council.

They said TASCAT appeals were getting costlier due to a new requirement that the council have legal representation at tribunal hearings, and were higher still if councillors voted against the recommendation.

"The costs associated with appeals are higher in cases where the council decision differs from the council officer recommendation," they said.

"In these cases, council has an obligation to hire external expert advice to support the council decision as the testimony of council's officers cannot be relied upon as their recommendation differs from the ultimate council decision."

Councillor Joe Pentridge, who sought the release of the information, said the money spent by the council and those appealing matters at the tribunal was "wasted".

He said there needed to be another avenue to mediate planning issues outside TASCAT, as the funds could have been spent in a way that better served residents.

"We've wasted $300,000 and the problem is continuing to grow," Cr Pentridge said.

"Look at the Baker Group and their development at Tamar Street and York Street.

"That whole matter cost the community and the developer tens of thousands of dollars. Wouldn't we be better off putting that money into the community?"