Planning Directive No. 6 and Interim Planning Directive No. 2

Transcription

1 11 September 2017 The Hon Peter Gutwein MP Treasurer and Minister for Local Government and Planning by Tasmania Level 3, 124 Exhibition Street Melbourne VIC 3000 A.B.N Leading effective planning for people and places Dear Minister, Planning Directive No. 6 and Interim Planning Directive No. 2 The Tasmanian Division of the Planning Institute of Australia thanks the Minister for the opportunity to comment on the provisions for Visitor Accommodation in the draft Planning Directive No. 6. The Planning Institute (PIA) is the peak representative body of planning professionals in Australia, and the Tasmanian Divisional Committee represents those planning professionals practising in Tasmania. As the peak professional association for planning, we have unique skills and capacity to advise of the implications of planning reform and State economic agenda. Our aim is to ensure that the State s planning system produces the best planning outcomes for our community, with the fundamental aim of ensuring a net community benefit and best practice planning. While this representation is in response to draft Planning Directive No. 6 (PD6), it is also applicable to the recently introduced Interim Planning Directive No. 2 (IPD2); and more broadly to how visitor accommodation is being facilitated within the state. PIA Tasmania makes this submission in the context of recently announced targets for tourism identified in the Liberal policy document Building Your Future: ,000 tourism-related jobs by A 50% increase in the average per visitor spend by % of all visitors to stay overnight in regional areas during their trip to Tasmania by 2022 Continued targets for tourism include the following: Grow our tourism industry to 1.5 million visitors per year by 2020 It is well recognised that Tasmania is experiencing unprecedented growth in Tourism, which is significantly contributing to economic growth. It is also clear that visitor accommodation, particularly within the State s capital of Hobart is not able to provide for sufficient accommodation for the possible number of visitors at peak times. Equally, there are other examples across the various regions in the State where similar scenarios arise. Enquiries: PIA Tasmania Telephone: tas@planning.org.au Web:

2 In broad terms, PIA Tasmania supports the clarification of planning controls as to when share types of visitor accommodation will require a permit. The question for the planning profession is whether the policy settings provided in IPD2 and IPD6 set the right balance between facilitating the share economy in visitor accommodation and providing for affordable rental housing for Tasmanian residents. It is important to review any change to housing and policy settings and a change to planning controls over visitor accommodation is such a change - in the context of unforeseen impacts on other parts of the housing sector. Existing use rights Under draft PD6 the scope for exemptions is reasonably broad, and there is also potential for substantial additional development to accommodate visitors. Once a landowner has invested substantially in development that may facilitate the use of the land for visitor accommodation, existing use rights will protect such uses, making it difficult to roll back exemptions for visitors if this is no longer desirable. It is therefore vital that the policy settings are carefully considered in the first instance. We note that this includes any person that has commenced a visitor accommodation use lawfully in accordance with IPD2. There may be other unintended consequences as a result of this. For instance, accommodation including four bedrooms over 300m 2 of area including an area for any management/occupier/owner is likely to be of a larger scale and may be considered inconsistent with the existing character and amenity of many residential areas. The exemption that an owner or occupier is temporarily absent will be difficult to establish and enforce. The length of time for temporarily absent is not defined within the directive, and it is not clear what the test would be to establish that the dwelling is the main place of residence for the owner or occupier. This will rely on neighbours to dob in unlawful practices, and increase the enforcement burden for councils. Greater clarity in the language used to give effect to the policy intent is desirable. Housing affordability The issue of sharing economy and visitor accommodation is not a new one in Hobart. The Battery Point Planning Scheme 1979, had specific clauses to prevent the further proliferation of visitor accommodation that may otherwise result in the area primarily providing accommodation for tourists. Clause Visitor Accommodation of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015, including A2, controls visitor accommodation in Battery Point and is consistent with the objective that visitor accommodation is of a scale that accords with the Residential Character and use of the area. This issue is not unique to Battery Point, and the same may be said of other locations close to the waterfront and CBD such as Sandy Bay, North Hobart, and West Hobart, where housing stock traditionally utilised for student and rental accommodation is being converted to visitor accommodation. It is important that in highly desirable residential areas that opportunities exist for long term residents, and that they are not priced out of the market. Tasmanians are now experiencing the demand for visitor accommodation expanding to all suburbs within proximity of services and jobs. Centrally located suburbs of all the cities of Tasmania are all experiencing substantial pressure from the use of homes for visitor accommodation where the return of investment is substantially better than they were leased long term. There is emerging evidence from Europe that while tourism is good for economics it is damaging the values that attract visitors to cities and towns. 2

3 For example, within Venice, where the permanent population is 55,000 1 and declining, and it is now at risk of losing its UNESCO heritage listing due to transformations to the functionality of the urban settlement including: functional transformations of Venice and the lagoon historic centers caused by the replacement of residents houses with accommodation and commercial activities and services to the residence with tourism-related activities that endanger the identity and the cultural and social integrity of the property. 2 Residents are being displaced from inner city locations, and for this reason, major cities have banned home sharing platforms such as Airbnb to protect permanent residents including; New York City, Barcelona, Reykjavik, Amsterdam, Paris, New Orleans, Santa Monica, and Berlin 3. The displacement of residents from the centre of cities may have other unforeseen effects, including displacing people from living close to work with resulting increases in travel times and motor vehicle transport, urban sprawl as demand for housing further out increases, and the consequential loss of economic activity in the city centre reducing the authenticity and vibrancy that drives visitors to a city. It is these types of impacts that PIA Tasmania considers need to be thought through in relation to a planning deregulation of visitor accommodation; a control brought in to accommodate a short term gain can have lasting effects. Affordable Housing The current government has recognised the need to provide affordable housing in the report Affordable Housing Strategy This strategy recognises the locations where demand for housing is greatest, and the issues that housing stress can have on a community. Low cost accommodation is also needed to facilitate the growth of education and innovation options with the relocation of the University of Tasmania into the main urban centres. Targets for the State Government include: 29. Triple the number of new affordable houses by 2025 This is in conjunction with the continued target of To grow the Tasmanian population to 650,000 by 2050 While some of this growth is capable of being accommodated through new dwellings it is recognised in all the regional land use strategies that more efficient and effective use of existing developed land has better sustainable and long term outcomes. The PIA Housing Position Statement identifies that Housing Affordability is a critical issue in Australia and the following: 1 Kettle, Martin; Mass tourism is at a tipping point but we re all part of the problem; 11 August 2017; 2 UNESCO, Venice and its Lagoon, accessed 6/9/17; 3 Conde Nast Traveler, 8 Cities Cracking Down on AirBnB; 22 June 2016; 3

4 Declining affordability impacts economic performance and labour market efficiency, social cohesion and equality in cities and the creation and distribution of wealth through home ownership. 4 Home sharing platforms are already recognised as contributing in a short fall in affordable housing in Tasmania 5. A reduction in affordable housing through increased visitor accommodation in housing stock could diminish the liveability of our residential areas and the potential of other resources, including the growth of education resources. Rural Areas While it is recognised that the State government has targets for visitors to regional areas the structure of the directives potentially undermines other targets, particularly for Agriculture. There is potential to impact on the characteristics of rural areas (Rural Living Zone, Environmental Living Zone, and Village Zone). For example it is possible for a person who owns a 2ha rural living parcel build an exempt structure (e.g. colorbond shed), and then convert that existing building into visitor accommodation. Correctly, multiple dwellings are prohibited within the zone. Visitor accommodation is a permitted use within the Rural Living Zone, and as the use would be undertaken in an existing building (that was exempt from assessment itself), it would satisfy the relevant Acceptable Solution. With the ability to be replicated on a single property, and then replicated on nearby properties, there is the potential to completely change the density and characteristic of rural areas. Of further concern is that as the Rural Living, Environmental Living and Village Zone regularly adjoin agricultural zones there is potential conflict through fettering of agricultural activities. There is potential that changes would be contrary to the State Policy on the Protection of Agricultural Land Use Conflict Another example is that people could use permitted visitor accommodation to quash or significantly impact upon nearby uses that have the potential to cause environmental harm, particularly a Level 2 Activity. If a Level 2 Activity is advertised but is yet to be approved, and a nearby owner believes they will be detrimentally affected by the proposed activity, the nearby owner could easily obtain a permit for visitor accommodation purely for the purposes of impacting the operation of (and any conditions that apply to) the Level 2 Activity. This is because it would create a new sensitive use closer to the source of emission of the use with the potential to cause environmental harm and any noise/dust/odour emissions would then need to be mitigated, potentially destroying the viability of the new venture. Process In addition to tourism, there is a raft of other targets the State Government has identified as important in its policy Building the Future for Tasmanians. 4 Planning Institute of Australia; Policy Housing Position Statement (06/16); 5 Blair Richards; Airbnb boom in Tasmania sparks affordable housing distress; 9 May 2017; 4

5 The information released to accompany draft IPD2 provides insufficient guidance as to how the directive is consistent with the direction of the objectives of the Land Use Planning and Appeals Act, and the State policies, particularly the Policy for Agricultural Land, nor how it fits into the broader government policy platform to provide for affordable housing [Tasmania's Affordable Housing Strategy (DHHS 2015)]. It is recognised that planning should facilitate new technologies that are changing the way that we use our land resources; and to be flexible and agile to new innovations. Tasmanians also have the benefit of being able to learn from International precedence on the impacts of disruptive technologies as we rarely experience the changes first. However, as illustrated in the example of Battery Point the proliferation of visitor accommodation is not a new challenge for our state; and the principles that we have established for the fair and orderly use of land, and to sustain the protection of natural and physical resources have not changed over time. In considering the proposed amendments to Visitor Accommodation, it is important that firstly that decisions are made with respect to broader land use issues including settlement and housing policy including affordable housing; the creation of active and vibrant cities and local economies; healthy and active transport; as well as how to accommodate an increase in student numbers, prevent land use conflicts and protect our valuable rural and agricultural land. Secondly, that greater emphasis is given to the implications of how such a broad exemption will be administered by councils and the implications of existing use rights, particularly if it is later necessary to reverse these policy settings. Finally, evaluation and review of draft PD6 is imperative for future policy refinement and development. Specific monitoring is imperative to gauge understanding of visitor accommodation and the implications this has for residential areas. The lessons learnt elsewhere suggest that this is valuable; ensuring that residential amenity is sustained and housing affordability is not compromised through the relaxation of these use and development controls. The lessons learnt elsewhere also make a valuable contribution to our own policy development and reinforces the importance of such analysis. This in turn has the potential to form the basis for future decision making with respect to any amendments made to the Tasmanian Planning Scheme. Yours sincerely Irene Duckett FPIA CPP Tasmanian President Planning Institute Australia 5