The two-year limitation would generally be appropriate where a project had been revoked because there was ‘no reasonable prospect’ that the project could be approved. A parallel provision under LUPAA, at subsection 62(2), specifies that where RMPAT has determined an appeal, an application, within a period of two years from the date on which the RMPAT made its decision, cannot be made unless RMPAT provides permission. This allows for instances where there is a change to the broader policy/planning settings such as a change to the regional land use strategies. If a change means that a permit in respect to a use or development is no longer inconsistent with the setting, an application for a permit can be re-submitted. In the context of the above, section 60ZZZL of the revised draft Bill has been modified to allow the Commission to provide its permission for the proponent to apply to a planning authority to grant a permit in relation to a project that is the same as, or substantially the same as, the major project. Section 60ZZZL of the revised draft Bill has been modified as follows: 60ZZZL. Restriction on certain applications for permits or amendments to LPS Except with the permission of the Commission, a person may not, within 2 calendar years from the date of a decision by a Panel under section 60ZZN(1)(b) to refuse to grant a major project permit in relation to a major project, or from the date of a revocation of a declaration of a major project under section 60S – (a) apply to a planning authority to grant a permit in relation to a project that is the same as, or substantially the same as, the major project; or (b) request the planning authority under section 37(1) to prepare a draft amendment of an LPS that is substantially the same as a draft amendment of an LPS prepared in accordance with section 60ZZZJ(1) in relation to the project. Other key issues raised in the submissions – no modifications Landowner consent The Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association (TFGA) contended that the draft Bill highlights the disparity in rights between public land and privately-owned land. The TFGA raised concern that there is a need for protections to preclude proponents using the major projects assessment process to overwhelm objections, or as a de facto mechanism, to ‘short cut’ what would be otherwise a lengthy
The two-year limitation would generally be appropriate where a project had been revoked because there was ‘no reasonable prospect’ that the project could be approved. A parallel provision under LUPAA, at subsection 62(2), specifies that where RMPAT has determined an appeal, an application, within a period of two years from the date on which the RMPAT made its decision, cannot be made unless RMPAT provides permission. This allows for instances where there is a change to the broader policy/planning settings such as a change to the regional land use strategies. If a change means that a permit in respect to a use or development is no longer inconsistent with the setting, an application for a permit can be re-submitted. In the context of the above, section 60ZZZL of the revised draft Bill has been modified to allow the Commission to provide its permission for the proponent to apply to a planning authority to grant a permit in relation to a project that is the same as, or substantially the same as, the major project. Section 60ZZZL of the revised draft Bill has been modified as follows: 60ZZZL. Restriction on certain applications for permits or amendments to LPS Except with the permission of the Commission, a person may not, within 2 calendar years from the date of a decision by a Panel under section 60ZZN(1)(b) to refuse to grant a major project permit in relation to a major project, or from the date of a revocation of a declaration of a major project under section 60S – (a) apply to a planning authority to grant a permit in relation to a project that is the same as, or substantially the same as, the major project; or (b) request the planning authority under section 37(1) to prepare a draft amendment of an LPS that is substantially the same as a draft amendment of an LPS prepared in accordance with section 60ZZZJ(1) in relation to the project. Other key issues raised in the submissions – no modifications Landowner consent The Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association (TFGA) contended that the draft Bill highlights the disparity in rights between public land and privately-owned land. The TFGA raised concern that there is a need for protections to preclude proponents using the major projects assessment process to overwhelm objections, or as a de facto mechanism, to ‘short cut’ what would be otherwise a lengthy