They should be grateful for a roof over their heads

Leave a reply
Metro Tas bus stop, Harbord Rd, Claremont.

It doesn’t seem to matter that a proposed housing development had dwellings of a size so small that they would not be automatically accepted by the planning scheme or most people.

For automatic approval the area per dwelling is 325 square metres. The proposed development had a site area of 223 square metres per dwelling, barely two thirds of the 325 !

It doesn’t seem to matter that the location of the development is 400 metres walking distance from the nearest Metro Tasmania bus stop in Harbord Road. This utterly absurd 400 metres is regarded by the planning scheme as making the bus stop relevant to the lives of those who would trudge that distance in all weathers.

But most will not of course use the bus stop. The residents are effectively forced to have their own vehicle, placing even greater pressure on their already limited incomes.

It doesn’t seem to matter that the bus stop is not a bus shelter. So if they, in their desperation, decide to use the bus service the bus stop provides no shelter from the elements – heat, rain, cold, wind.

It doesn’t seem to matter that the single Metro Tasmania bus service reaching that bus stop has a bus service that most normal residents would never regard as adequate for a good quality of life. Hourly from Monday to Saturday. Six services on Sunday every two hours.

It doesn’t seem to matter that the nearest shop of any sort is in Wyndham Road, a half hour walk for those feeling adventurous enough to attempt it.

Yet all of this does not seem to matter in the assessment of a planning application for social housing at 168A Abbotsfield Road in Claremont by TASCAT.

The potential residents of the dwellings must seeming be grateful to have a roof over their heads, despite it’s location, lack of public transport, small dwellings 400 metres beyond the outer edge of the Metro Tasmania network, and inevitability of having use some of their limited funds on a vehicle to be mobile. And the poor car parking size and design makes the use of a vehicle even more unpleasant.

The proposal I’ve mentioned was rightly rejected by the Glenorchy Planning Authority in September 2025 but overturned by TASCAT (Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal) a fortnight ago.

In TASCAT’s decision they said

“It is self-evident that the provision of housing for members of the community and society will have a community and societal benefit. Social housing provides security for those most in need, which will benefit the tenants and the pool of people seeking affordable housing specifically, and benefit society more broadly by reducing rental stress and homelessness.”

So self-evident that the need for housing makes virtually all factors irrelevant.

Clearly many still believe they should be grateful for a roof over their heads.

Sources

Tasmanian Planning Scheme – Development Standards for Dwellings in General Residential Zone:- https://tpso.planning.tas.gov.au/tpso/external/planning-scheme-viewer/30/section/68?effectiveForDate=2026-07-13

Record of TASCAT decision for appeal for DA PLN-24-270 – https://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/tas/TASCAT/2026/90.html

Retrospective planning permits: no such thing

Leave a reply

Most years at least one planning application will appear on the agenda of the Glenorchy Planning Authority where a close reading of the agenda report reveals that the applicant has jumped the gun.

Their application may for example refer to a construction project. Work had begun before a permit was granted (maybe even before the application was submitted). A demolition perhaps.

Some planning applications set out to legitimize work already done for a proposal not yet approved.

Some simply ask for “retrospective approval” of work done without any prior attempt to get a planning permit. One recent application in Granton asks for approval of a verandah roof, an above ground swimming pool (with decking etc), a garden shed, and boundary fencing.

Others seek to legitimize a change of use for a property for which approval hasn’t yet been given. One example a few years ago was where Coopers Automotive (I think) had already started operating a car repair(?) business in Claremont for years before they had even applied for a permit. The word “legalise” was used in this case.

A little research uncovered a number of planning applications where the word “retrospective” was used to refer to the proposal in full or in part.

A quick google search showed a para in Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995 amendments which said

Under LUPAA, a planning authority may accept a development application that includes works that have occurred prior to approval. The planning authority then conducts an assessment as though no works had been commenced. If any of the completed works are subsequently assessed as not approved, these may be required to be undone. The risk of potentially having to undo unauthorised works remains an incentive for owners to seek approval for works.

The word “retrospective” doesn’t appear but it does hint at retrospectivity.

I then discovered that many Tasmanian councils included in their schedule of charges for planning applications a charge for a “retrospective planning application” (refs Burnie City Council, Meander Valley Council, Kingborough Council, Launceston City Council (item 722), Glamorgan Spring Bay Council, Northern Midlands Council, West Tamar Council, etc). Curiously though, the charge is exactly twice the normal charge in every case. I could not find a separate charge for “retrospective” planning applications on the Glenorchy City Council website fees and charges page.

In June 2026 the Glenorchy Planning Authority discussed an Incat application. The Deputy-Mayor asked a question relating to work already done by Incat. The planning staff dealing with the application responded (at 22:00 in the video recording of the meeting) with:

“while there has been some work that has occurred on the site without the approval formally being granted we’re here to look at the planning permit application and whether this subject planning permit application should be granted or not.

In noting that the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act doesn’t have anything in it to prevent an applicant applying for retrospective approval and in some instances an application will be lodged for a permit that there may be other matters that are being considered by council under enforcement regulatory aspects.

But they need to be separated from what we are looking at here, which is a planning permit application.”

Could there be a Chinese wall within council between planning and compliance?

The staff answer told the GPA members that any un-approved work related to the application by the applicant was irrelevant. That it was not GPA business. It was potentially the business of compliance. But her answer gave no rationale for her statement. No explanation.

So I moved on contacting the Tasmanian Planning Commission (TPC). I asked about so-called retrospective applications and how council and the planning authority are expected to deal with them. The TPC should I thought be an authoritative source on the subject.

Right at the start I was told very clearly that there is no such thing as a retrospective planning application. LUPAA, the relevant act of parliament, makes no allowance for a planning permit that is retrospective.

I found a report of an appeal dealt with by the now-defunct RMPAT back in 1999. There was a question about an application where work had already been done. The document answering the question can be found here. Despite being only two pages, it contains some interesting legal logic that I’m not sure I’ve understood. But I’ll try. The key clause seems to be:

5. There is however nothing in the Act which precludes an application being made for a planning permit for a development, where it happens that the land already has upon it a development which is of the same description as that applied for. In such a case what is applied for is not the legitimation of the existing development, as no such application can be made. What is applied for is instead, a permit for a development of a particular description. Whether or not that development presently exists at the time of the application is irrelevant to Council’s power to determine the application. Whether or not such works physically exist at the time of the application may give rise to the question of whether the application should include a request for a permit for demolition.

Apparently then, when you are granted a planning permit for a fence, you are receiving a permit to construct a fence with a certain specification in a certain place.

So it seems that if you’ve built your fence, you can apply for and receive a planning permit to gain a general permit to build a fence. Then all is well. You don’t have a retrospective permit but you have a permit which ignores the existing fence.

That logic allows us, I think, to separate the granting of a planning permit from any action dealing with what has already been done.

While the planning authority is doing its job, compliance/enforcement are also dealing with the work already done.

Depending on the results of the actions of each body, there could be a number of outcomes.

I need to give this more thought to finish this post. I’ll be back.

Changes to Council Planning Officer delegations (29 June 2026)

Leave a reply

Tonight Council approved changes to Planning Officer delegations that have as their major purpose a reduction of the need for meetings of the Glenorchy Planning Authority. Efficiency was mentioned only in passing.

The changes increase the number of circumstances in which Discretionary Development Applications can legitimately be given to one of these council staff positions – Coordinator Planning Services, Senior Statutory Planner, and Senior Strategic Planner – for determination. More delegation, fewer meetings.

Debate, questions, and discussion of the agenda item were virtually non-existent. Maybe the members of the GPA were relieved that their workload would (hopefully) reduce significantly. Behaviour at GPA meetings often gives the impression that some members would rather be somewhere else. It is perhaps not surprising that members of the GPA initiated this review of delegations on this occasion.

The agenda item was strewn with references to “community interest”, “genuine public interest”, “little public interest”, “level of community interest”, “meaningful level of public concern”, and “significant community attention”. It seems that councillors believe that public interest, concern and attention can be accurately measured by the number of opposing representations for an advertised DA.

References to applications as “minor in scale”, “low risk”, “routine”, “low impact”, “non-contentious”, and lack of “genuine significance” are also strewn throughout the agenda item. No mention is made of how scale, contention, significance and impact are defined or measured – the estimated dollar cost of the proposed development is the best that the proposal can suggest.

The frequency with which meetings do not have a full complement of members or proxies tends to reinforce that impression. That fact may have triggered the addition or a tied GPA vote as a trigger for a DA to be dealt with under delegation.

If we’re having trouble finding five, yes just five, councillors to make a full GPA meeting, it will become more difficult when legislation currently passing through state parliament reduces the number of Glenorchy councillors from ten to nine.

Since the current delegations were put into effect in 2022, at least eight GPA meetings have been cancelled due to lack of business. Members are clearly not overloaded with work.

Finally it is a little disappointing that councillors are reducing their workload as legislation going through state parliament will significantly increase the allowance of every councillor.

Read on to learn about the delegations after changes made at the June 2026 Open Council meeting (agenda of meeting, item 11.4). The effect of the changes was to replace the previous delegations relating to discretionary permits (Sections 57(2) and (6) of LUPAA).

You can view the previous delegations approved in 2022 here.

Historical Data

In 2020 Council undertook to publish summary data for all planning decisions made under delegations in quarterly reports. All published reports are in the form of PDF files which can be found here. Over time it seems that Council has placed an ever-decreasing priority on the production of those reports, to the extent that Council usually requires a reminder to produce the report.

The changes

Tonight’s agenda item requested approval of amendments to the Instrument of Delegation which applies to the positions of Coordinator Planning Services, Senior Statutory Planner, and Senior Strategic Planner.

Applications for planning permits for a discretionary use or development only in the following circumstances:

1. If the time in which the planning authority must grant or refuse a permit will expire prior to the next scheduled meeting of the Glenorchy Planning Authority, and the applicant has refused to grant an extension to that time period.

2. To refuse to grant a permit where the intended use or development is prohibited.

3. All permit applications where five (5) or fewer opposing representations are received.

4. The estimated cost of new development does not exceed $5,000,000.

5. To determine a section 57 application where the Glenorchy Planning Authority considered the application but did not reach a decision due to a tied vote.

Do wheels rule on the Cycleway?

Leave a reply

What follows is a copy of a Facebook post written last year as a rant about the way cyclists on the Cycleway treat those on foot.

As a regular walker on what is officially called a Cycleway but in reality is a shared space, I regularly feel uncomfortable when overtaken from behind by a cyclist or scooterist. No bell, no warning, just a quiet whoooshh as they pass!

It might not be so disconcerting if they slowed as they pass but that is extremely rare. And speeds seem to be increasing so much so that a direct collision would be damaging, sometimes speeds that might not be legal on a public road.

It seems that we pedestrians are viewed as interfering with their riding or scootering pleasure, obstacles to be navigated.

There is some irony in seeing cyclists treating pedestrians in ways they would not accept from drivers.

There was such a variety of responses to the Facebook post that I decided to find out exactly what rules do apply to those of us who use the Cycleway, whether walking, cycling or scooting. Legally I mean. For example, does the Cycleway have any road rules about how we behave and how we deal with each other.

Since most of the Cycleway is in Glenorchy I supposed that Council would have the knowledge through an interest in the safety of their residents. So I asked them. Their response simply referred me to the legislated Road Rules.

It turns out that the Tasmanian Road Rules do apply to the cycleway for people walking, riding, or scootering. You can read the road rules online. The current version is 2019.

To start with, the Cycleway is not a road (because roads are mainly for “driving or riding of motor vehicles”), But it is what the legislation calls a “road-related area“ because it is “open to the public and designated for use by cyclists”. No mention of drivers or pedestrians so I don’t know what this designation means for the Cycleway.

And because the Cycleway is “an area open to the public … that is designated for, or has as one of its main uses, use by both the riders of bicycles and pedestrians” and has these signs beside it, it is also a “shared path” (Rule 242). That means that pedestrians are allowed to use the Cycleway and have just as much right to be on it as any cyclist.

Tasmanian Shared Path sign 2026.

Part 15 of the Road Rules, entitled “Additional Rules for Bicycle Riders” :

  • Rule 250 says that the “rider of a bicycle riding on a … shared path must (a) keep to the left of the footpath or shared path unless it is impracticable to do so; and (b) give way to any pedestrian on the … shared path.”
  • Rule 251 says “The rider of a bicycle riding on a … shared path must keep to the left of an oncoming bicycle rider … on the path.”

So, despite what many think, some rules do apply.

My thoughts then turned to the issue of speed. Are there any speed limits for any type of user of the Cycleway?

Rule 244O says that someone “must not travel in or on a personal mobility device … on a shared path … at a speed exceeding 25 kilometres per hour.” But the dictionary for the rules says personal mobility devices do “not include a bicycle, motorised scooter, motorised wheelchair or wheeled recreational device”. I couldn’t find any other reference that might be relevant for the Cycleway.

And finally, there is the question of whether cyclists should attempt to warn pedestrians using a bell (or something else), a question that can surprisingly arouse strong emotions. In my experience, hearing a bell is a rare event – but a welcome one from a cyclist approaching from behind particularly if done early and not seconds before the overtake. The bell does not however absolve the cyclist of prioritizing safety over speed, slowing for the overtake.

In conclusion, not only is there no acknowledgement that bicycle speed could increase the danger to pedestrians, there is no signage whatsoever on the Cycleway reminding cyclists that they are sharing the path with walkers, and that their riding speed and behaviour matters.

Lowes Bridge. Protected?

Leave a reply

Last updated: 23 March 2026 (postscript 1)

Glenorchy does not have a place like Sullivans Cove where many 19th century buildings can be seen in plain view. They are in fact hard to avoid. But Glenorchy does not. It has many small, inconspicuous, hard to find, pieces of history. While some are well-known like the Austins Ferry Cottage, most are small. Many which only the dedicated searcher with a good map could find. Many which people might pass without noticing. Easily overlooked. A small well in Austins Ferry (261 Main Road). A small bridge in Claremont (Windermere).

Lowes Bridge over Faulkners Rivulet, Chigwell Feb 2026. Showing downstream side.

On Monday (16/2/26) the Glenorchy Planning Authority (view agenda) will discuss an application for a subdivision in Chigwell in which a “local heritage place” plays a part. It appears in the list of officially recognized “local heritage places” in our planning scheme. It is described as:

“A 19th century culvert spanning Faulkner’s Rivulet and marking the location of an all-weather historic carriageway from the Main Road through what was part of the Lowestoft property. The culvert demonstrates 19th century road construction techniques that potentially reflect the scale of infrastructure projects able to be undertaken on large country estates under Lieutenant-Governor Arthur’s system of convict assignment.“

It is considered worthy of listing because:

  • it is a fine and intact example of a 19th convict period bridge (culvert) constructed in permanent materials, that demonstrates the scale of projects able to be undertaken on large country estates and provides insights to the characteristics of all-weather land routes of that era that are locally uncommon.
  • it exhibits the principal characteristics of a 19th century masonry bridge (culvert) forming part of an historic rural land route.

The presence of the bridge, labelled as Lowes Bridge in Google Maps, is uncontroversial. The bridge is on a portion of the parcel to be subdivided that is of no value to the developer. The proposed solution will extend the land on the other side of the rivulet to, in effect, produce a Public Open Space to be managed by Council. A convenient donation to Council by the developer.

But if you were to visit the bridge, you would need a map. There is no signage indicating its existence or anything that you could describe as useful for wayfinding. Without a map you would walk past it without noticing it. It is not on any tourist trail – it will not be found accidentally.

The bridge goes nowhere. It starts on weeds and grass for which mowing appears to be the only maintenance. It ends in bushland, bushland which seems to teem with wildlife.

It is not a destination that attracts. Nowhere to sit and rest. No recreation facilities of any sort. Google Maps also shows a “water filling station” within a few metres of the rivulet. It is locked and covered in cobwebs. The condition of the bridge makes it unsafe for activity, certainly for children.

So it is unsigned, it is hidden off-street, it has no facilities, it is unsafe. It is nowhere near any site promoted for tourism by Council or anyone else.

One of the sources below says it “enjoyed by the community of Chigwell and is a treasured place in the local environment.” A laughable statement unless my eyes deceive me.

So what is the culvert being protected for?

Postscript 1 — 23 March 2026

On 17 March I submitted these questions to council to try to better understand the situation. I’ve inserted the answers (received on 19 March) below. You can see the actual email response here.

Q1. Can you tell me when the bridge last received any work to conserve/preserve it? and what was done?

A1. I am not aware of any work having been done on the bridge in recent years. If and when issues are identified that warrant intervention, an assessment would occur at that time.

Q2. Has council ever contemplated signage pointing at or providing information about the bridge?

A2. We don’t have any plans for interpretive or way finding signage to minimise the potential for graffiti and vandalism.

If invisibility is regarded as the best protection, the bridge is clearly of greater interest to the professional historian than the public of Glenorchy.

Sources

1. Undated photo from book “Glenorchy 1804 – 1964” by Alison Alexander published by Glenorchy City Council in 1986, page 10, source given as Mr J. Hinks.

Possible historical photo of bridge. Source: “Glenorchy 1804-1964” by Alison Alexander, page 10.

That photo was posted in Facebook by “Pictorial History of Collinsvale – Bismarck and surrounding areas” on 21 August 2018. Irene Schaffer commented with:

“The bridge over the Faulkner Rivulet (at what is now Chigwell) would have been built by Thomas Y. Lowes well before 1832, possibly about the same time as the barn, allowing him access from his property on the south-east where his farms were, to his north-west land.

Tradition has it that this may have been an alternative route used in winter when the main road was muddy and impassable for the horses and carts. This would have been a very long way round and as it would have had to have gone over the Faulkner’s Rivulet, its possible this route would have been much in the same condition at the main road. There is no suggestion of a road or track on any of the early maps and I believe that this bridge was used by Lowes and his farm workers, and not by the general public.”

2. Listing in Glenorchy Planning Scheme – https://tpso.planning.tas.gov.au/tpso/external/planning-scheme-viewer/15/section/2431?effectiveForDate=2026-02-14

3. Chigwell History Project – https://glenorchyarts.com.au/lowes-bridge/, https://www.tasfamily.net.au/~schafferi/index.php?module=blog2&page=viewpost&post=chigwell-project-2004.php&pageback=kop32.php

4. Council email response to questions about Lowes Bridge received 19 March 2026.

Notes

Close examination of the current bridge certainly give the impression of extensive “repair” or “renovation” at some point. By Council? So it is not clear how much of the current bridge is 19th century. Research?

Parklets coming to Moonah

Leave a reply
Parklet in San Francisco (Wikimedia Commons under Creative Commons licence.

Back in 2022 when council developed guidelines for Footpath Trading, the resulting document stated that a business could apply to council for permission to trade on the roadway. It went on to say that “this would [generally] be for the installation of a deck where parking exists to become an outside dining area.”

The idea has been raised earlier in the 2021 Greater Glenorchy Plan (page 77). That document stated in relation to the Moonah CBD that “it also has under-utilised parking areas that could be transformed into parklets which will provide green open spaces for the community to use for passive recreation and events”.

Council last year (without public announcement or consultation) started to look into the potential for parklets in the Moonah CBD. The Mayor let slip the parklet project in her announcements at the November 2025 Open Council. We have heard nothing since.

So at last night’s (January 2026) council meeting in public question time the following question was asked.

“Was Council intending to consult with the public as well as ‘affected businesses’? And what more can you tell us about progress on that project?”

Here is what we learnt (view recording here).

“CEO: We have made some progress with some design work. There has been some consultation with businesses. We did have a session out of hours and invited businesses to make contributions and we are progressing. We expect to see more movement this financial year.

Director Patrick Marshall: The first thing we had to do was speak with Metro Tasmania about the possibility of relocating some bus stops so that the parklets would have the most benefit. We had to do some trials of different types of location – that was successful. The next stage is targeted consultation with businesses that would be directly affected by where they’ll be – parking and things like that. Once we’ve done that targeted consultation we’ll go out to wider consultation with the public.”

The Moonah strip is very commercial and functional and many might find some vegetation, trees or plants, pleasant and relaxing. A roadway with parking on both sides leaves little room for a median strip of trees as in the Glenorchy CBD so parklets seem the only viable alternative. We look forward to seeing a design or plan to give us a clearer idea of what is proposed and where.

Sources

Click to access Footpath-Trading-Guidelines.pdf

Click to access Greater-Glenorchy-Plan.pdf

Recording of Jan 2026 Open Council – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d49wYHVSy9Y – start time 21:40.

Image sourced from Wikimedia Commons under Creative Commons Licence.

Conflicts of interest for councillors

Leave a reply

In December 2025 I read in the Mercury website a story about the debate in Burnie Council regarding the Marinus Link project. The Mercury article says that “Mayor Teeny Brumby excused herself from the vote due to a conflict of interest stemming from her public support for the project”. To learn more about conflict of interest I sent questions on notice to council. Here are the questions with answers in red.

Q1: If a mayor expresses a public position (for or against) a proposed project, is
that by itself enough to constitute a conflict of interest?
Response: No, see comments below.

Q2: If any councillor expresses a public position, does the same apply?
Response: No, see comments below.

Q3: If any councillor publicly lobbies for or against a proposed project, is that byitself enough to constitute a conflict of interest?
Response: No, not by itself.

Part 2 of the Local Government (Code of Conduct) Order 2024, does impose
important limitations, including that there cannot be a personal or private interest
involved as well. An elected representative is expected to “openly and honestly in
the public interest” debate various matters, with the Mayor acting as the
spokesperson for the Council. In all their duties, Elected Members are to “give
genuine and impartial consideration to all relevant information known”.

However, in some circumstances an Elected Member will be making
administrative decisions, such as when they attend the Glenorchy Planning
Authority meetings. There they will have a duty to uphold the legislated planning
scheme, and are expected to approach the issue with an “open and
unprejudiced” mind.

I found a more detailed explanation in the March 2025 Open Council agenda in the response to a question from Michelle Austen. I’ve quoted it here in full.

“An elected member would be required to declare and manage a conflict of interest in any matter coming before them. There is not an automatic conflict of interest in every matter because a person was, for example, a real estate agent.

It is a matter of considering the circumstances surrounding each individual matter that comes forward to an elected member for decision.

The Local Government Act 1993 sets out in detail the requirements for elected members when it comes to conflict of interest.

In summary, the Act requires elected members to bring an open and unprejudiced mind to all matters being decided upon in the course of their duties, including when making planning decisions as part of the Council’s role as a Planning Authority. They must make decisions free from personal bias or prejudgement.

There are two kinds of conflict detailed in the Act – pecuniary (or “money-related”) interests and non-pecuniary interests.

Pecuniary interest
An elected member has a pecuniary interest in a matter if the elected member or a close associate would, if the matter were decided in a particular manner, receive, have an expectation of receiving or be likely to receive a pecuniary benefit or pecuniary detriment.

Close associate is defined in detail under the Act to include a range of business and family relationships.

If an elected member has a pecuniary interest in a particular matter, they are required to declare their interest, leave the room and not participate in the decision-making. There are penalties under the Act for not doing so.

Non-pecuniary interest
Non-pecuniary interests are non-money-related personal or private interests (whether actual, potential or perceived) that might unduly influence, or be seen to unduly influence, an elected member in their decision-making. These are addressed in the Elected Member Code of Conduct and the Act.

An elected member must act in good faith and exercise reasonable judgement to determine whether they have an actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest.

An elected member must avoid, and remove themselves from, positions of conflict of interest as far as reasonably possible.

An elected member who has a non-pecuniary interest, must:
(a) declare the conflict of interest and the nature of the interest before discussion of the matter begins; and
(b) act in good faith and exercise reasonable judgement to determine whether a reasonable person would consider that the conflict of interest requires the elected member to remove themselves physically from any Council discussion and remain out of the room until the matter is decided by the Council.

There are penalties under the Act for not complying with the Code of Conduct.”

Glenorchy needs a city square

Leave a reply

Many cities in many countries across the world have a place in the centre where people can go … not necessarily for any special purpose, but often just to be, to sit, to eat, to read, to watch, to relax and feel safe. In Italy it is a piazza, in Spain a plaza, in Germany a platz, and so on.

Not necessarily a place full of vegetation, plants or trees … but usually with shade to protect from the sun, usually with a central water feature help you relax or cool down, definitely with areas where people can sit sheltered from the weather.

A city square would serve a special purpose … it is a place where people can go that costs nothing to enter and where you are not expected to spend while you are there. Glenorchy has some places like that ( e.g. Tolosa Park, Montrose Bay) but none are in the centre of town easy for people to walk to.

You might imagine that Glenorchy’s council forecourt (view a short video of it) might serve that purpose. It is in the centre of the CBD. But if you watch what goes on in that lawn you will notice that few people stop … most use the paths in the lawn to go from somewhere to somewhere else. To the library. To their car. To a shopping centre.

Sociologists call places like that “third places” … places that are not home, not work, not education i.e places where you do not have to do anything if you don’t  want to. You can read a good explanation at this link.

It seems that the council lawn is not a third place.

Maybe it should be.

Maybe council should have a plan to make it a third place.

That would require a plan but council seems to lack any vision for what the council lawn could be.

Indeed a casual glance at the lawn gives the impression that changes to the lawn area are ad hoc without any particular destination in mind. That should now change.

Anyone remember Housing Supply Orders?

Leave a reply

Next Monday (8/12/2025) the Glenorchy Planning Authority will consider a Planning Application for six units on a piece of vacant land shown in this map.

A bit of historical trivia. Back in 2018 the then State Government passed the Housing Land Supply Act. Since then a grand total of 14 Housing Supply Orders have been created under the Act (see a full list here). One, gazetted in December 2022, contains the land on which Homes Tasmania intends to construct six units .

While I’m pleased that the land may finally put to a worthwhile use, there are some aspects of the proposal that are interesting. That proposal will be decided on Monday. You can read the entire agenda item here (it is the only agenda item). You can watch the proceedings in an online livestream if you wish.

First, the boundaries of the land have been carefully calculated so that the proposed dwellings are outside the flood-prone hazard area (i.e. flooding of Faulkner’s Rivulet). The front of the units faces the rivulet.

Second, the courtyards (i.e. their private open space) of units 5 and 6 are partially below street level. That does make one wonder whether people walking along Link Road above them will have a view into the courtyards (or potentially into the dwellings). Privacy could be an issue. What is more, despite those courtyards facing south, the report says they receive “adequate sunlight”. Residents may find themselves spending more of their time on the deck facing north, facing the rivulet, getting more sun.

Finally, we once again see an application that does not provide the amount of off-street parking that would not require a discretion (read Code C2.5.1 here). The code dictates that this application must have at least 14 parking spaces. The proposal provides only 8, two of which are labelled as “visitor”.

As usual, a rationale has been found to allow the provided eight to “accord with the performance criteria”. A condition has been added to the proposed permit which states:

Additional overflow carpark onto Allunga Road is to be prevented by restricting the households to one (1) car per dwelling. This restriction is to be managed and enforced by Homes Tasmania and subsequent property managers for the design life of the unit development. Prior to the issue of building approval and/or commencement of works (whichever occurs first), detail on how single vehicle restriction is to be enforced must be submitted and approved as a Condition Endorsement, to the satisfaction of the Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer or Development Engineer.

The absurdity of this condition becomes clear when you realize that there is no lack of on-street parking on Allunga Road. So why fuss over it? For such a small development, it seems that time spent attempting to enforce single-vehicle households is time that could be used more productively elsewhere. And how is the enforcer to determine whether a vehicle parked on the street is attached to one of the units?

The Traffic Impact Assessment supports the figure of eight by using statistics from Melbourne and southern Tasmania to claim that “car ownership is lower for social housing in Tasmania”. Curiously though, the latest draft seen by the author of the Glenorchy Parking Plan that council is currently preparing does not distinguish between social and non-social housing for parking requirements.

In conclusion, minimum off-street parking requirements prove once again to have no practical value. The developer knows best what is appropriate, and their proposed quantity is invariably accepted by the Planning Authority.

Marys Hope and Crosby intersection a pedestrian black spot

Leave a reply

Marys Hope Road in Rosetta is very hospitable to drivers with a 1,000 metre sweeping bend coming from the crest down to Crosby Road. It is wide. It has generous sight lines to allow drivers to see far ahead. The road surface is mostly excellent. Very few vehicles park on the roadside because most adjacent properties have generous parking space. So it should not surprise the reader to learn that traffic statistics for May 2025 show that three out of every four vehicles travelling on Marys Hope Road break the current 50kph speed limit.

It is not however hospitable to pedestrians. There are stretches on both sides without footpaths. Anyone walking between Main Road and the crest of Marys Hope Road will cross the roadway at some point, taking great care to avoid traffic.

You will see few children walking to or from Rosetta Primary School because most parents do not regard Marys Hope Road as sufficiently safe for children to walk unaccompanied.

The location most regard as highest risk is the intersection of Marys Hope Road and Crosby Road and nearby streets. Most walkers needing to cross Marys Hope Road during their walk will probably do so at or near the intersection.

Marys Hope and Crosby intersection 9 December 2025.

So that is where the rest of this article will focus.

Traffic speed

The reputation of Marys Hope Road as a roadway where drivers feel comfortable breaking the speed limit is well deserved, and they often do so inadvertently.

Council has generously provided traffic statistics for May 2025 (and for February 2020 before the speed limit was reduced from 60 to 50). Click here to view the data. Council’s decision to reduce the speed limit from 60 to 50 has, believe it or not, not reduced the average speed by 10kph. In fact, the percentage of vehicles breaking the speed limit has increased from 61% to 77%.

Lack of safety for pedestrians crossing Marys Hope Road

In March 2025 I raised with Council (using the SnapSendSolve app) my concern for pedestrians walking down or crossing Marys Hope Road. Here is their response.

“Thank you for raising the issue of pedestrians needing to cross Marys Hope Road due to the lack of a footpath on the southern side of the road.

We are aware of this and have on our program of works for our design area to look at a solution. However, instead of having pedestrians cross on Marys Hope Road twice, being either side of where there is no footpath, we are likely to investigate a crossing on Crosby Road.  This would mean that pedestrians on the southern side of Marys Hope Road would divert to Crosby Road and then through Crosby Court. An image is below of the proposed route in blue.”

Council proposal blue line. Yellow line shows absence of footpath. Light green marks driveway entrance with issues.

While their suggestion at first glance appears reasonable, the alternative route is unlikely to improve the situation.

  • Not only does the detour add distance to the walk (increase from 160m to 230m) , it takes the pedestrian left into Crosby down a slope and back up a short steep slope to Marys Hope. A slope steep enough to discourage anyone with mobility issues.
  • The detour could be used by walkers now but is not. Walkers are willing to accept the greater risk in crossing Marys Hope rather than the additional distance and effort in the alternative. If walkers found the alternative acceptable they would use it now. They don’t.
  • People walking to the bus stop next to the shop will regularly walk on the road along the yellow line because it is the shortest route. The quality of bus services is such that they dare not risk a half-hour wait for the next bus.

Driveway with safety issues

One driveway entrance forces anyone with a mobility issue to walk on the roadway. The Australian standard AS2890.1 provides guidelines for off-street parking design. In particular, it specifies for “access driveways near property boundaries” a “maximum gradient across property lines is 1 in 20 (5%)”.

And if the single footpath is blocked, the pedestrian is forced onto the roadway. Once there they have traffic approaching from behind.

Here is an image of a recent situation. The driveway I’ve mentioned above is in the foreground of the photograph.

Footpath closed near Marys Hope and Crosby October 2025.

The Australian Government has for years run an annual grant program, the Black Spots Program (BSP), designed to improve road safety across Australia. Anyone (even me personally) can nominate a place as a Black Spot. But in the Tasmanian context, unless a nomination is made or directly supported by the local council, it has little chance of success.

According to the guidelines a Black Spot is “an area or stretch of road where serious crashes have occurred, or are at risk of occurring.”

While the eligibility criteria refer to “a proven history of casualty crashes”, they also

“recognise that there are road locations that could be considered as ‘accidents waiting to happen’. Therefore, some program funds may be used to treat sites where road traffic engineers have completed a Road Safety Audit or Safe Systems Assessment or equivalent report, and found that remedial work is necessary. This allows an opportunity for proactive safety works to be undertaken before casualties occur.”

Pedestrians are barely mentioned in the documentation relating to the Black Spot Program. The emphasis is clearly on the danger to those in vehicles, not those hit by the vehicles. But the situation I’ve described above contains the greatest risk to those walking along and across the roadway.

I believe there is sufficient evidence to make a good case for a formal safety assessment of that intersection as a first stop toward nomination for the Black Spot Program.