It has bugged me for many years how opaque the process of determining DAs by Council planning staff under delegation is to the public. Council has in the last ten years changed the rules about what DAs could be dealt with under delegation. At each step, it seemed that transparency was reduced to increase efficiency. The most recent change to the rules aimed to reduce the number of meetings of the planning authority and hence the workload of its members.

So on July 6 I submitted some questions on notice to Council which, in effect, asked whether the process followed by a delegate is identical to that followed by the planning authority.

The response, which arrived on July 21 and was published in the agenda for the July 2026 Open Council meeting, said very little about process. It took a very legalistic tone and repeatedly emphasised the “planning scheme and the legislative requirements under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act”. That type of response was, I suspect, intended to reassure me that the process under delegation was the same as that followed by the planning authority. It didn’t. Long on legality. Short on process.

So I began an experiment to determine how different the delegated determination process is to what the public sees in the planning authority.

I started by finding an advertised DA with which I had a genuine concern and started my process with a representation mentioning my concern. It was a DA related to proposed dwellings very close to the Brooker Highway in Austins Ferry.

I sent a representation on August 1 which said

“I am in general support of the application but have a particular concern with the potential impact on the amenity of residents in Unit 2, the dwelling closest to the highway, of the level of traffic noise on the Brooker Highway all year round. Unlike other nearby lots … there is no significant vegetation between Unit 2 and the highway to insulate the bedrooms from the noise.”

On August 3 I received a form letter from council’s Development Administration Officer which said

“Please see below link to access Representation Acknowledgement for the above application.
https://gno.t1cloud.com/T1Default/CiAnywhere/Web/GNO/ECMCore/BulkAction/Get/40ca75e3-b099-4e38-a75b-1d0bb626dac7

Please note, the document generation may still be in progress. This link will expire on 2 September 2026, 10:25 am (UTC+10:00) Eastern Australia Time (Hobart). If you have any questions, please contact (●●● ●●●, Planner) on (03)6216 6800 or email gccmail@gcc.tas.gov.au”

The link took me to a standard form letter signed by council’s Lead Statutory Planner (and giving the name of a planning officer to contact with any enquiries) that said

“I confirm that the Planning Authority received your representation on 03/08/2026.
Now that a representation has been received, the application may go to the next scheduled
Glenorchy Planning Authority (GPA) meeting to be decided. However, Planning Services of
Council has delegation from the GPA to decide planning applications with up to three
representations.

If the planning application is to be decided at a GPA meeting, you will be advised of the
meeting date and time. The meeting is live streamed on the Glenorchy City Council’s
Facebook page, if you are unable to attend.

Once the planning application has been decided, you will be notified in writing of the decision
within 7 days. If you are unhappy with the Planning Authority’s decision and have lodged a
representation within the 14-day advertising period, you have the right to lodge an appeal.
If you have any questions, please contact the above planning officer.”

The 14 day advertising period for the DA had a few days to run so I waited.

Thirteen days after the closing date for the advertising (on August 20) I received a letter (on paper in an envelope to my letterbox) again from the Lead Statutory Planner which said

“I refer to your representation about the above planning permit application. The Glenorchy Planning Authority has decided to grant a permit.

You have a right of appeal to the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (TASCAT) within 14 days of service of this notice. The applicant and any other representors who submitted a representation to the Planning Authority within the statutory period also have a right of appeal. If there is an appeal, you have a right to apply, in writing, to the Tribunal to be made a party to the appeal.

Details of the appeals process can be found on the TASCAT website or by contacting the Tribunal directly.

This permit will not take effect until the expiry of the 14-day appeal period. If there is an appeal, the permit will not take effect until the determination or abandonment of that appeal.

Unless this permit is extended by the Planning Authority, it is valid for two (2) years from the date on which it was granted. The permit will lapse if substantial commencement of the use or development does not take place within that time.”

This raised a few questions for me.

First, the letter was dated August 12 but arrived in my letterbox on August 20. So when exactly does my right of appeal expire? There was no postmark on the envelope to help determine when the letter was actually sent.

Second, what does Council define as “service of this notice”? When it was printed, posted, or delivered?

Third, the letter was not accompanied by a copy of the granted permit. How can I decide whether to appeal the permit if I do not know what conditions the delegate decided to place on the permit? As a representor I want to know at least whether the concern I raised in my representation was given serious consideration and whether that consideration was reflected in some way by the conditions on the permit. To appeal the permit without knowing what is in it is an exercise in futility. If the DA had gone to the planning authority the granted permit would have been published.

My next step was to email the planning officer shown on the letter as the contact for enquiries asking for an appointment to discuss my questions. I learnt from their reply that they were about to take some leave so I decided to email my main questions immediately. This is what I wrote:

First, although the letter was dated August 12, it didn’t make it to our letterbox until August 20. When was it actually sent? And did the appeal period start on the 12th or the 20th?

Second, since all my other contact with council about the DA was by email, could the issue mentioned in my first question have been avoided (as well as the cost of postage) by sending me the letter by email?

And finally, I don’t see how I could make any appeal against the permit if I don’t know what is in it. In particular, I raised a potential traffic noise issue. It would have been nice if the letter included a sentence mentioning the issue I raised and whether (or not) it was a planning matter and why. If the DA had gone to a GPA meeting the agenda item would have told me that. 

Their reply said

I’ll need to chat to Admin about your concerns and what you’ve raised, as they handle mailing out permit decisions, notifications to representors, etc, and so the processes you outlined ultimately sit with them. I do understand where you’re coming from though so I will have a chat to get the full picture and get back to you a bit later in the week.

I do wish to note though that with the permit application for Mahoney Drive, the applicant submitted an acoustic report which contained some recommendations related to constructions measures to reduce noise impacts from the Brooker Highway. A condition was placed on the permit to ensure these recommendations are implemented, along with submission of an acoustic verification report so we can sure that these measures have been included.

His reply did reassure me that the applicant had obtained professional advice on the issue I’d raised, and furthermore, that council had incorporated in the permit a recommendation to take the advice. The issue I’d raised had been taken seriously. Since the noise issue was particularly significant for the DA, the consultant report should have been added to the files in the website (under Advertised Plans).

September 15. No response yet from the Senior Planning Officer about “discussions within the team.”

To be continued.