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.