A series of ideas and commentary follows. Comments should be mapped and considered against relevant questionairre areas. This also forms a contribution as a member of the Tasmanian Active Living Coalition. The length does not conform to the platform's protocol or formatting, but was an avenue through which to address land use and urban design matters from a practicing planner and urban researcher with an intermediate level of experience. Commentary should therefore be viewed through this lens.

1. Protecting Southern Tasmania’s environment and keeping communities safe.

Creating walkable, sustainable communities is synonymous with the three other listed priority areas as reflected in rating tools for sustainable communities. For instance, the Green Star Communities rating credits: Providing Diverse and Affordable Living, Enhancing our natural environment/Reducing ecological footprint, and Creating Healthy, Safe and Secure Communities. BREEAM Communities provide similar rating credits: protection of ecological values, respecting the character of the existing landscape, and provision of housing and services within the area based upon demographic need. Considering these in an integrated manner is increasingly common practice and should be communicated as such to optimise contemporary, integrated development outcomes.

Further to this, there are directions within the Tasmanian Planning Policies (TPP’s) interconnected with sustainable communities: land development reflective of demographic needs. Specifically, these directions are contained within guidance related to the areas of Growth and Housing. Projected population growth is to contribute to rationale to land identified for proposed growth. Further to this, housing is to cater for the ageing population. The STRLUS could provide a degree of vertical policy integration between these high-level directions and Local Provision Schedules (LPS’s) of the Tasmanian Planning Scheme (TPS). This is through providing greater direction as to demographic cohorts with consideration as to spatial outcomes. For instance, evidence identifies that older person’s age in place until a certain point until transitioning to aged care. This is an example as to how further disaggregation of a demographic cohort (by ‘younger’ and ‘older’ ageing cohorts) can enable more specific consideration of spatial outcomes. Translation of these could inform revised activity centre hierarchies such as specification of Government Services and Community Infrastructure and Residential dwelling typologies.

Similarly, the TPP’s also provide high level direction as to encouraging higher density housing in suitable locations and timely supply of land (including for infill) that can easily be connected to, and integrated with, services. The STRLUS primer identifies challenges associated with the dominant land development pattern being greenfield, despite a 50/50 infill/greenfield target within the current urban growth boundary. Similarly to commentary in relation to demographics, it is recommended that the revised STRLUS provide vertical policy integration in relation to this matter. For instance, through greater consideration as to structural changes in the economy and how emerging brownfield and greyfield land opportunities that may result can accommodate residential development. In turn, this would contribute an avenue through which to continue working towards a 50/50 infill/greenfield target, reducing suburbanisation and optimising liveability through identification of urban renewal opportunities.

It is noted the overview as to social infrastructure within the STRLUS primer and that this is somewhat inconsistent with that as defined in the TPP’s. For effective vertical policy integration infrastructure aligning with demographics is critical. Through reflecting this broader, more common and comprehensive form of urban renewal within the revised STRLUS, development of sustainable communities will be more comprehensively addressed.

Interconnected with this, directions for alignment of social infrastructure where population growth is planned under Region Shaper #5 are noted. Activity centres of the existing STRLUS account for social infrastructure and directions under the Liveability direction of the TPP’s direct that the location of residential use and development be in proximity to this. Therefore, if done correctly and following statutory procedure, this is considered to largely fulfil the requirement for the STRLUS to plan “for new or expanded social infrastructure and services…aligned with where population growth is strategically planned across the Region”. The STRLUS should add further detail, bridging strategies within the TPP’s with translation within local municipalities. For instance, to optimise social infrastructure and liveability outcomes, locations where there is greatest return on investment for developers could be identified to ensure mechanisms for leveraging proportionate infrastructure contributions and ensuring development does not occur without equity. Through building in these aspirations, this has potential to optimise spatial prioritisation of Particular Purpose Zone’s within Local Provision Schedules but also ensures a layer of protection to enable value capture within Major Projects.

2. Protecting Southern Tasmania’s environment and keeping communities safe.

For the reasons stated above, promoting sustainable towns and villages is considered synonymous with other measures for protecting Southern Tasmania’s environment and keeping communities safe.

More broadly, TALC notes reference to Tasmania’s reserve estate throughout the document. In the interests of conceptualising this as a system across all layers of policy, the estate could be conceptualised as a connected network to demonstrate the region’s contribution to the biosphere. This interconnects with s.1 of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 which relates to the objective of securing a pleasant… living and recreational environment. This, in turn, is in the interests of liveability and active living due to increasing lifestyle choices related to recreation and considering interconnected recreational opportunities.

3. Preparing cities, towns and villages for climate change.

The identified climate risk (3.3 Natural Hazards and Environment Risks) is noted, as is inundation and erosion risk associated with climate change. Design of green spaces can provide effective mitigation and adaptation. For instance, through optimising areas unsuitable for other uses: areas prone to stormwater or flood inundation that may be cost-prohibitive to develop but can enable dual use of open space and stormwater catchment; areas where coastal erosion is high and tolerable risk cannot be achieved can enhance protection of built areas to climate change whilst restoring natural ecological systems; and enable mitigation of the urban heat island effect. Current climate strategies in the Tasmanian Planning System focus upon adaptation (i.e., emphasis upon coastal refugia) whilst design of green spaces (including at the interface of littoral and riparian environments) provides opportunity to enhance mitigation measures. Use of green space design can enable planned retreat.

The proposed implementation measures for open space, alongside other social and environmental infrastructure are also noted, such as exploring funding options for parks and community facilities (4.4 Opportunities and Challenges for Economic Activity and Infrastructure). There should be regard for measures where such contributions are legislated based upon thresholds of development, to strengthen and provide accountability for such contributions. For example of threshold based contributions, refer to s. 198 Open space contribution scheme of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 (South Australian legislative context). Also of note, and of interconnected relevance (within Part 15 – Funds and Off-set schemes of the Act), planning and development funds can be applied by Statutory Authorities facilitating urban renewal processes (s. 195) and an urban trees fund is also established (s. 200). Similar mechanisms are encouraged to be investigated by relevant Statutory Authorities as measures for effective implementation of improved open space outcomes.

4. Encouraging active travel and public transport.

In relation to the specific priority areas, it is considered that Housing closer to jobs and services is the area to be addressed long term to enable critical mass to increase intensification of public and active transportation (not without good and careful design). In turn, this addresses the underlying challenge of effective public and active transportation systems within the Tasmanian context. However, this does not discount the importance of Improved cycling and walking infrastructure and Safer streets and routes for all users. Both could provide improvements at an earlier stage in improvement of Hobart’s public and active transportation systems prior to longer term measures of bringing housing and jobs and services closer together (through integrated processes such as transit-oriented development and urban renewal). Specifically, Improved cycling and walking infrastructure could focus upon environments that are suitable for improvement (i.e., underutilised streets where bike lanes can be implemented or a traffic impact assessment is able to justify removal of on street parking to enable, increase or optimise active travel infrastructure). Similarly, in enabling Safer streets and routes for all users, upgrades could focus upon areas that are in accordance with planned asset management works to be implemented under Local Government asset management strategies. This is timely given strategic planning related to the Bus Rapid Transit System and hubs that connect to local networks.

More broadly, it is noted that Hobart’s congestion challenges are acknowledged in the primer document for consultation. However, for an accurate and targeted policy development process and accurate revisions to the STRLUS, it is considered that specific reference as to how areas which arterial and collector roads connect (such as economic and population centres) and how these impact upon congestion be consistent in the STRLUS narrative (i.e., commentary on page 16 to be consistent with that on page 61 which considers growth of areas across Greater Hobart as contributing to congestion). Further to this, Sorell should be highlighted as a primary economic centre. In relation to transport, patterns of subdivision that could further optimise active living outcomes are also noted. For instance:

• Efficient utilisation of street networks: wide boulevards with excessive asphalt surface which appears disproportionate to the traffic flow based upon both density and scale of the development, as well as a lack of connectively and throughways (in the instance of the Peninsula development at Midway Point).
• Similarly, disjointed land development is not integrated with or responsive to the landscape or surrounding open space, nor are quality open space or design outcomes achieved within strata developments within the municipality.
  

Whilst these development challenges are not unique to the Sorell municipality, given it is a growth centre and there are already congestion challenges, thinking around liveable, high quality development outcomes and measures to achieving this (i.e., Specific Area Plans) are timely in accordance with review of the STRLUS and can be transferred to municipalities with similar challenges. This is critical in considering how locations are made to be ‘right’ as destinations for housing, rather than only considering housing being in the ‘right’ locations (for instance, existing areas frequented by public transport and close to services and other opportunities). It is also noted a number of areas throughout the document that reference transport connectivity, specifically public transport and active travel. It is considered that such policy has potential to be more targeted, specific and contemporary (without being rigid) to inform cascading development that will result from the TPS. In turn, this would effectively enable the STRLUS to function as a mechanism that enables vertical policy integration between the TPP’s and the TPS. Specifically, the TPP’s provide a number of overarching directions in relation to active travel and public transport. The revised STRLUS can provide a greater level of detail that can then cascade into the TPS. For instance, specific areas that may provide opportunity for this such as main street environments, underutilised roads and areas undergoing significant redevelopment. Furthermore, modes identified as opportunities and challenges (such as rapid bus transit and the ferry system) should reflect their stage of consideration (i.e., business case, implementation) and be linked to urban development and renewal opportunities with opportunity for integrated land use and development.

Light rail service from Austin’s Ferry to Hobart CBD with feeder buses from Brighton and Bridgewater on the eastern side of the river and also on the western shore where distance to the service would discourage usage.

This would reduce daytime congestion on the roads and also have a positive environmental impact.

A safe and reliable public transport system should also benefit hospitality businesses in the CBD as many people, in places like Melbourne for example, are happy to head into town for a night out without the car.

A regular ferry service should run on the Derwent similar to that in Brisbane. Given that Hobart has two builders of high speed lightweight vessels and the advances in electrification this should be an obvious way to reduce congestion and it’s environmental impact, and also support local manufacturing jobs.