Kingborough LPS Hearing
Day 1 Constituent Guide
TPC / Direction 69 / IreneInc Report — plain-English summary for residents
Important disclaimer
This document represents Cr Aldo Antolli's personal interpretation of the Day 1 hearing and is NOT professional planning advice. It is shared to help you engage with the process. Before lodging your representation, read the source material yourself, form your own view, and speak to a qualified planning professional or legal adviser about your specific property and circumstances. Do not rely on this document alone.
Note: The downloadable PDF version of this guide contains more complete information than this online summary. Where detail matters, please refer to the PDF.
How to access the Day 1 recording
The full Day 1 recording is available on the Kingborough Council YouTube channel:
Watch on YouTube: Kingborough LPS Hearing Day 1Important: By direction of the Tasmanian Planning Commission, the Day 1 and Day 2 recordings on Council's YouTube channel will only remain publicly available until midnight Friday 19 June 2026. If you wish to watch them or save them for your records, please do so before that date.
Timestamps in this document (e.g. [05:44:11]) refer to the elapsed time in that recording and can be used to jump directly to the relevant exchange.
What happened on Day 1, in brief
Day 1 was almost entirely a presentation by Kate Heckelmann (IreneInc, the consultant engaged by Council) walking the panel through the report's methodology and evaluation framework. Locality-by-locality discussion (Kingston, Tinderbox, Margate, Kettering, Bruny, etc.) was deferred to Day 2.
The TPC's substantive questioning began at roughly [05:00:00] when Chair Nick Heath handed to delegate Dan Ford. That approximately 80-minute Q&A block is where the panel's thinking became visible.
The panel and its tone
Panel members: Chair Nick Heath, Delegate Dan Ford, Delegate Rohan Probert, plus advisers Linda Grome and Simon Gatenby.
Tone toward Council's original LCZ approach
Cool. The very existence of Direction 69 signals the earlier 75–85% ELZ-to-LCZ translation was not accepted by the Commission.
Tone toward the IreneInc report
Engaged and taking it seriously as a structured replacement, but sceptical of three specific weaknesses set out below.
The four main issues covered on Day 1
What is the LCZ actually for?
"The LCZ is not to protect the vegetation — that's the Natural Assets Code's job. The LCZ is to protect landscape values."
This compartmentalisation is the single most important signal from Day 1. The panel drew a clear line between vegetation protection (handled by codes and overlays) and landscape-values protection (the only legitimate purpose of the LCZ).
Can overlays do the job instead of the LCZ?
"Why do we care what the underlying zone is if we're protecting the trees through the code? What use are we scared about that would compromise a landscape value?"
Kate Heckelmann's response was a notable concession: "I probably agree with you — it's not so much the use..." The panel pressed Council to identify specific land uses that an LCZ would prevent but a Rural Living Zone (RLZ) plus overlays would not. No clear answer was provided.
Are "landscape values" even defined?
Southern Tasmanian Regional Land Use Strategy criterion CV4.1 requires landscape values to be developed in consultation with the community — no such consultation was undertaken on IreneInc's landscape-values statement.
Kate confirmed that no public consultation was undertaken on the IreneInc landscape-values statement. At [05:52:39] Nick Heath added: "Nagging in the back of my mind is the thought that 'everywhere is landscape'."
How do landscape values reach a planning officer years from now?
"The risk is that these values get named now but vanish at development-application stage."
Council's strategic planner Adrian conceded at [05:16:08] that embedding landscape-values statements as Local Area Objectives "would assist" in ensuring they survive into the scheme and are available to planning officers at the DA stage.
Concessions secured from the presenters
Key admissions on the record
Kate Heckelmann [05:40:24]
Could not name a specific USE (as distinct from development) that an LCZ would prevent and an RLZ would not.
Kate Heckelmann [06:16:56]
Conceded the IreneInc report's low/medium/high risk ratings are "a judgement made on a locality-by-locality basis" rather than defined categories.
Kate Heckelmann [~05:35:10]
Accepted Nick Heath's summary that the risk of a buyer running full farming on a small bush block is low, and that any meaningful clearing is already discretionary under the priority vegetation overlay.
Kate Heckelmann [06:11:55]
Accepted that a locality with a consistent detached-dwelling subdivision pattern but no visible hobby farming can still be considered for RLZ.
Adrian (Council) [05:16:08]
Conceded there is merit in embedding landscape-values statements into the scheme via Local Area Objectives.
Risk of procedural challenge
The landscape-values statement underpinning the IreneInc analysis was not publicly exhibited and the community has not agreed to it. Delegate Dan Ford flagged this against CV4.1 of the Regional Land Use Strategy.
At [05:18:30] Nick Heath indicated any resulting changes are likely to be delivered through a modifications and sub-modifications process rather than re-exhibition — "we have to be mindful of natural justice" — but the Commission has not yet decided the mechanism.
How to use these cues in your representation
Each point below is drawn directly from what a TPC delegate said on Day 1.
Ask what the zone adds beyond the overlays.
If your land is covered by the Natural Assets Code (priority vegetation) and/or the Scenic Protection Area, argue that the overlays already make damaging development discretionary, and that LCZ adds no further protection that RLZ plus those overlays cannot provide. (Ford [05:40:24]; Heath [05:44:11])
Challenge the evidentiary base for landscape values on your locality.
The CV4.1 community-consultation requirement has not been met for the IreneInc statement (Ford [05:01:07]). Your representation can test, refine, or rebut the specific landscape-value claims attached to your area.
Challenge the risk rating for your locality.
The low/medium/high risk labels are admitted judgement calls, not defined thresholds (Probert [06:16:56]; Heckelmann's concession). If the risks Council cited — grazing, service stations, subdivision — are commercially or practically implausible on your block, say so and explain why.
Do not assume visible rural activity is required for RLZ.
The panel accepted that a bush-nestled detached-dwelling pattern can support RLZ even without paddocks or sheds. (Probert [06:11:55]; Ford [05:30:16])
Ask for landscape values to be embedded.
If the landscape values cited in your locality are not written into the scheme as Local Area Objectives or equivalent, argue that applying LCZ is premature — a planning officer at DA stage will have no way of knowing what those values are. (Ford [05:13:57]; Adrian's concession [05:16:08])
What to watch for on Day 2
Locality focus.
Day 2 is where the 28 localities are walked through. The Day 2 guide is indexed by locality so you can jump directly to your area (for example: Tinderbox, Margate, Kettering East, Adventure Bay).
Cross-day consistency checks.
On Day 2 the TPC tested Kate Heckelmann's Day 1 framework against specific parcels. Watch for any moments where the panel reverses a Day 1 signal, or where Council retreats from a Day 1 concession — those are high-value cues for your representation.
Scope limit: This guide reflects Day 1 only (approximately 6 hours 20 minutes of recording). Locality-specific discussion occurs on Day 2 and is not captured here. Always check the primary recording and the IreneInc report before finalising your representation.