Busting the 'anti-development' myth
If you believe everything you read, I am single-handedly responsible for high rents and homelessness in Hobart due to my strident ‘anti-development’ stance.
What nonsense.
I always welcome robust debate, and believe that a diversity of views is necessary and healthy in the political sphere. But dealing with this level of spin is another thing entirely. I hope you will permit me to address some of the misrepresentations that have been doing the rounds recently.
A graph of voting records that first appeared in 2018, authored by a former Alderman, has been revived and published by a candidate intending to run for Council later this year. The data presented in the graph has even been cited in a debate in the Tasmanian Parliament. Unfortunately, because the so-called research is politically motivated, it provides very selective information to reinforce a narrative that some elected representatives are 'anti-development'.
Crunching the numbers
The implication of the data is that I voted 162 times against the approval of dwellings in Hobart between 2016 and 2022 – and that because those projects had been recommended for approval by planning staff, I was wrong to do so.
This is incorrect for a number of reasons.
The data set used calculates the number of dwellings in a select number of Development Applications (DAs) and whether elected members voted for or against those DAs. It’s not accurate to say that I ‘voted against expert planning’ 162 times – rather this is the total number of dwellings, including units inside one building, where I voted against.
This actually equates to a total of just 13 DAs since March 2016 when I have voted against when staff recommended approval – this an average of less than twice a year for the last six years. Voting against 13 proposals in more than 6 years doesn’t sound quite as dramatic does it?
On none of those occasions did my vote prevent a development going ahead, because they were all approved by a majority vote on Council. In the context of a debate on housing shortages, the graph of voting records is simply irrelevant.
Informed voting decisions
When I do vote against a Development Application, it is with the knowledge our planning laws are far from perfect.
Many projects in the inner residential zone are covered by planning rules that have been set by the state government. In some cases, a project can be 'lawful' but creates very poor design or planning outcomes. That’s why many matters end up in the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (TASCAT), with parties debating different technical interpretations.
In all the cases that are included in the graph currently circulating, legitimate concerns were raised by neighbours and others about problematic aspects of these particular projects.
When a DA comes before Council, I listen and respond to concerns about design flaws, development in bushfire prone zones, damage to heritage and other controversies around these applications. I then use my discretion and judgement about whether I should vote for it. If I could negotiate a better outcome I would - but the planning system we have really only allows elected members to say "yes" or "no" to projects put in front of us.
Only 1% of all planning applications are refused and many thousands are approved. Elected members get to have a say in only 12% of planning applications. These are the ones that are controversial with neighbouring property owners or with the broader community.
Many people tell me they would like to see elected members, as representatives of the public interest, actually have stronger oversight of planning in Hobart and implement clearer rules to ensure good design and quality projects.
Record levels of approval
In reality, the current Council - elected in 2018 - has approved a record number of inner-city residential apartment projects. We have approved developments with over 480 dwellings, since November 2018.
The graph showing data from March 2016, alleging 'anti-development' bias in Hobart does not include information such as 1,647 new dwellings plus 705 new student accommodation units that were approved in the same period.
But the ‘over-development lobby’ aren't happy and want all projects approved regardless of design, heritage or building standards.
What's most concerning about this 'anti-development' narrative is the suggestion that elected members should wave through 100 percent of proposals without any amendment. This is an extreme view based on a philosophy that planning decisions should be removed from the purview of elected representatives in local government.
Following such a philosophy would see a race to the bottom in the standard and quality of development in Hobart. The radical 'development-at-all-costs' view promoted by some does not reflect the aspirations for sensible and high-quality development held by most Hobartians for our city.