The two-year limitation would generally be appropriate where a project had been revoked because there was ‘no reasonable prospect’ that the project could be approved.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 Panel and participating regulators will have the opportunity to review the Major Project Proposal and identify whether, for any reason, there is ‘no reasonable prospect’ that the major project can be approved, in its current form. However, should this occur, section 60ZG requires the Panel to notify the proponent and provide the reasons for its view, and invite the proponent to respond. The proponent may wish to submit further information, an amended Major Project Proposal or recommend that the Minister revoke the project’s major projects status. The Panel must consider any comments from the proponent and consult with participating regulators prior to recommending that the Minister revoke the project’s ‘major project’ status under section 60ZH. The Minister may revoke the major project’s status following receipt of the Panel’s advice under section 60S. Preparation of the draft Assessment Guidelines Following the establishment of the Panel, the draft Bill requires each of the relevant regulators (the EPA Board, Heritage Council, Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania, Department of Primary Industries, Parks Water and Environment, regulated entity and gas pipeline licensee) to advise the Panel on the following: Whether the regulator intends to conduct an assessment of the project. A regulator that indicates it intends to assess the project becomes a ‘participating regulator’ for the purposes of the draft Bill; and The matters that the regulator requires to be included in the proponent’s Major Project Impact Statement (MPIS) for the project and any conditions or restrictions that the regulator requires to be included in the Assessment Guidelines for the project. Any conditions proposed at this are draft only and subject to consideration of the proponent’s MPIS, public exhibition and hearings. Proposed conditions may include an in-principle permit commencement condition (IPPCC), which is a condition that can be placed on a permit requiring the proponent to provide further documentation for approval prior to the permit commencing (refer section 60ZZP). The bulk of proposed conditions to be complied with after commencement of the permit are expected to be identified following assessment of the proponent’s MPIS and consideration of representations provided during public exhibition and hearings on the project. However, the ability to propose conditions at this early stage enables regulators to flag any obvious conditions that they intend to require on the permit, subject to review of the MPIS and public representations. This is designed to give proponents early notice of proposed conditions where possible.