Statement by the appellant
The Council was negligent. Councillors failed to read, understand or abide by the planning scheme as it related to the development and the council staff did not provide good advice.
The process in the Appeals Tribunal was fair and reasonable, if a bit slow..
Without Peter and the TCT the appeal would not have been attempted. His judgement and strategy proved successful.
The development should not have been approved and I hoped to stop it. The compromise achieved in mediation is far better that what council approved.
I advise anyone faced with a similar situation to seek Peter’s advice and help.
TCT helps Koonya residents win concessions in Planning Appeals Tribunal - and why this is important for you
Peter McGlone, TCT Director
Last week the Planning Appeals Tribunal issued an amended planning permit for a Recreational Vehicle (RV) park at Koonya on the Tasman Peninsula. The permit included a number of very important conditions that the appellant and joined parties won through a lengthy mediation with the proponent. I am proud to have been the advocate for the appellant and joined parties in the mediation and to have helped negotiate outcomes that have very real benefits for people’s lives and the local environment.
If you and your community are facing undesirable developments, the planning appeals tribunal exists for you, and the TCT are here to assist.
Help us to continue assisting communities – make a tax deductible donation to the TCT
The planning system and people’s right to participate in planning decisions is coming under increasing threat first with the State Planning Scheme and now from the Major Projects Legislation
In order to protect what is good about the current system it is important to understand what it can offer.. The outcome for Koonya residents is a real world example of the enormous value of the Planning Appeals Tribunal as a forum for resolving disputes
I will not name the specific location or the people involved but the RV park was proposed for a beautiful and peaceful part of the Tasman Peninsula, where the residents consider they have a slice of paradise. It is in a rural area near a picturesque bay between Taranna and Premaydena. Small farms are accessed by a quiet gravel road that is seldom used by outsiders. The road provides access to a sheltered beach reserve flanked on the east and west by magnificent sandstone headlands that are mostly covered in woodland. Critically, residents are far enough from each other to feel secluded and private.
When one resident proposed an RV park all of this seemed under threat.
The appeal was lodged because of numerous impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties, indirect impacts on the local coastal reserve and impacts on the high quality farm land of the proponent’s land. The appellant was joined by five other adjacent and nearby residents who raise these concerns:
RV park users could bring an unlimited number of dogs (evidently quite a selling point for RV parks) which would disturb the peaceful area by barking, could escape and attack sheep and people and would be walked at the coastal reserve which would disturb nesting oystercatchers.
Generators and music devises were approved that would greatly disturb the local residents, especially as the area had little natural sound buffering.
The presence of up ten RVs with several people each would intrude upon residents’ privacy and have visual impacts.
RV owners were allowed to empty their grey water onto the site which could cause stench and pollute the site and neighbouring properties.
The land is subject to flooding and could be churned up by RV’s which would lead to soil erosion.
Over time it was feared that the RV site would be drained or gravelled, permanently converting the good agricultural land to a non-agricultural use.
Weeds could be introduced to the site on dirty RVs.
If the appellant had unlimited resources they might have taken it to full appeal and tried to have the RV park stopped. But finances were limited and even so there was a risk of losing a full appeal. So it was worth attempting mediation. After six weeks of mediation, the the RV park proposal was approved but we were successful in having the following conditions added:
Dogs and the use of generators are prohibited.
Vegetation is to be established to provide screening at key locations.
All vehicles entering the site are to be free of excess mud or dirt.
The RV park rules are to include advice on location of nearby dump points, wash down facilities and car washes.
Grey water collection tanks must be disposed of off-site and that any user without a grey water collection tank must collect grey water into containers which must be emptied onto screen plantings.
The placement of gravel or modification to drainage must not occur, protecting its potential use as agricultural land.
The RV park must close during any period in which the ground is very wet.
Probably the biggest victory was the prohibition on dogs and generators which will make the RV park much quieter and safer. Allowing dogs would have made it unlikely that oystercatchers would ever breed at the local beach again.
I would like to thank the appellant and joined parties for participating so constructively in mediation and providing so much knowledge and practical experience that helped deliver mediated solutions.
Communities across Tasmania are seeing a lot of undesirable developments proposed. Help us to help these communities by making a tax deductible donation today.