Kingborough LPS Hearing
Day 2 Constituent Guide
TPC / Direction 69 / IreneInc Report — locality walk-through and updated cues for your representation
Important disclaimer
"This document represents my personal interpretation of the Day 2 hearing and is NOT professional planning advice. I am sharing what I observed from the recording to help you engage with the process. Before lodging your representation you should 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." — Cr Aldo Antolli, 16 April 2026
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 2 recording
Watch on YouTube: Kingborough LPS Hearing Day 2Important: 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. [02:33:54]) refer to the elapsed time in that recording and can be used to jump directly to the relevant exchange.
What happened on Day 2, in brief
Day 2 was the locality walk-through. Kate Heckelmann (IreneInc) presented recommendations for all 20 Kingston and Channel localities. The TPC panel engaged continuously, with Dan Ford, Rohan Probert and Nick Heath pressing on consistency, evidence, and how landscape values actually reach a planning officer.
Bruny Island was deferred pending Council's Specific Area Plan review (not before 22 May). The day closed with Chair Nick Heath setting out the next steps for affected residents, including a hard submission deadline of midnight Monday 4 May 2026.
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 the IreneInc locality recommendations
Broadly receptive, but with real probing on the weakest justifications.
Tone toward Council's 16 March "high risk appetite / least restrictive alternative" resolution
Polite but firm: read into the record, then explicitly set aside. The Commission will decide on Section 34 LPS criteria.
Locality index — summary of outcomes
All 20 Channel and Kingston localities were walked through on Day 2. Bruny Island was deferred. Green indicates TPC acceptance; amber indicates the TPC raised concerns or diverged.
| Locality | IreneInc recommendation | TPC lean |
|---|---|---|
| Tinderbox (west) | ELZ → Rural Living Zone (no further subdivision) | Accepts |
| Tinderbox (east) | LCZ retained | Accepts with doubts (weakest retention of the day) |
| Howden & Blackmans Bay | ELZ → Rural Living Zone (medium risk) | Accepts |
| Margate & Electrona | Mix: Rural Zone / RLZ / LCZ (Van Moray Road) / EMZ | Accepts |
| Coningham & Snug | Mix: RLZ (Snug Tiers Rd) / Rural Zone (Old Station Rd) / LCZ balance / 4 coastal parcels parked | Accepts |
| Kettering East & Oyster Cove | Full transition ELZ → Rural Living Zone | Accepts |
| Kettering West | Mix: Rural Zone (west) / RLZ (Groombridges & centre) / LCZ (elevated yellow block) | Accepts (after testing risk argument) |
| Woodbridge | LCZ for bulk; yellow block → Rural Zone | Accepts |
| Birchs Bay | LCZ for bulk; eastern yellow block → Rural Zone | Accepts |
| Flowerpot | LCZ for bulk; split-zone Rural for cluster | Accepts |
| Middleton | LCZ for bulk; eastern yellow → Rural Zone (some split) | Accepts |
| Gordon | LCZ for bulk; LDRZ coastal strip; Rural (west). Note: crown land PID 7308390 (Craigers Road) corrected to EMZ. | Accepts, with one mapping correction noted and agreed |
| Kingston & Kingston Beach | LCZ retained (inside Urban Growth Boundary) | Accepts but flagged as anomalous |
| Albion Heights & Bonnet Hill | Full ELZ → RLZ; LDRZ pocket retained | Accepts RLZ; LDRZ pocket contested |
| Taroona & Kingston North | LCZ retained (medium-to-high risk) | Accepts |
| Kingston West | LCZ + RLZ mix; extra western parcels → RLZ | Accepts with case-by-case flex |
| Neika | LCZ for bulk; 2 Huon Road parcels → RLZ; 540 Leslie Road split-zone flagged | Accepts with case-by-case flex |
| Leslie Vale | As exhibited (RLZ + LCZ mix) | Accepts |
| Allens Rivulet | Mix: RLZ (Mountain Rd / Allens Rivulet Rd parcels in part); Rural Zone (red group) | Accepts |
| Sandfly & Kaoota | Mix: RLZ (Pregnall's / Talbot's); Rural Zone split on Hall's Track / Pioneer / Huon / Thompson | Accepts |
| Longley & Lower Longley | As exhibited; part of 137 Anderson Road → Rural Zone | Accepts |
| Bruny Island (all subregions) | NOT DISCUSSED on Day 2 | Deferred: pending Council's SAP response (post 22 May) |
Main issues and decisive moments
The five exchanges below are the decisive moments of Day 2. Items 1, 3 and 4 correspond directly to the localities flagged in the table above.
Tinderbox East — the "height risk" argument [00:35:10 – 00:47:04]
"Specifically, what cannot be managed through those codes for the eastern side of the peninsula?"
Kate's answer: the Scenic Protection Area does not reach the east coast, and the Rural Living Zone allows a significantly higher building height than the LCZ. Ford then challenged the logic directly:
"Given the Tasmanian Planning Scheme is premised on the fact that the primary strategy should be implemented through the application of zones: if this area is deficient from having a scenic landscape code, wouldn't it follow that you put the Scenic Protection Code on there, rather than put arguably an inappropriate zone?"
Kate held the LCZ recommendation, arguing the other available mechanisms were not sufficient. Ford pressed further: had any analysis been done finding examples of inappropriately high buildings that had actually compromised landscapes? Kate conceded the analysis was based on potential risk, not documented harm.
"Pop marks, areas of clearance in vegetation and potentially additional height is something we are going to have to work through. We are going to hear submissions from people who say they don't care about the odd pop mark which adds to the fabric of urban Kingborough. We are going to hear submissions from people about height that doesn't really impact the fact that it's still a coastal environment in a bushland setting. How are we going to manage that?"
Takeaway: If your property is on the eastern side of Tinderbox peninsula, a well-evidenced representation has real prospects.
Kettering West / Groombridges Road — risk conceded to overlays [02:33:54]
"If we're talking about vegetation removal in an area covered by the priority vegetation overlay, that's going to need a discretionary application, is it not?"
Kate confirmed: "Yes, it will definitely need a discretionary application." Nick: "So it's a risk that potentially could be managed by Council through the development of those approaches." Kate: "Yes: which is why we've recommended it be included within RLZ." This exchange confirms the overlay carries the load on vegetation clearance regardless of zone, and directly led to the Kettering West RLZ recommendation being accepted.
Kingston & Kingston Beach — LCZ inside the Urban Growth Boundary [04:18:11 – 04:19:25]
This locality is flagged because it is the only instance in the entire LPS where LCZ is retained inside the Urban Growth Boundary. Adriaan Stander conceded at [04:20:00] that the recommendation is inconsistent with STRLUS Chapter 19 but site constraints preclude a better option. The panel accepted it as anomalous for this process only.
Bonnet Hill LDRZ pocket — outside the UGB [04:41:40 – 04:46:15]
Adriaan Stander conceded at [04:44:48] that the Bonnet Hill LDRZ pocket is not consistent with the Regional Land Use Strategy; relying on the Bonnet Hill SAP to partly address it. The panel put Council on notice to revisit this.
Council's 16 March resolution — explicitly set aside [06:45:48]
Council's "least restrictive alternative" resolution was read into the record and explicitly NOT accepted as binding. The Commission will decide on Section 34 LPS criteria. Your representation will carry more weight if it is framed around these statutory criteria rather than simply arguing Council should have chosen a less restrictive zone.
TPC Chair's closing remarks [06:37:20 – 06:48:00]
This is the single most important content in the Day 2 recording for residents.
1,267 letters sent on 2 April 2026 to eight classes of affected landowner. Every proposed LCZ owner under the exhibited LPS has received one, except Bruny Island owners: they will be contacted after 22 May.
Each letter contains three pieces of information: (1) what zone your property was exhibited under in the draft LPS; (2) what IreneInc now recommends (unchanged or changed); and (3) how you can respond.
The submission deadline is midnight Monday 4 May 2026: described by Heath as "hard and fast".
Letters do NOT represent final decisions. They are part of the Commission's information-gathering and consultation process.
The Commission will take into account all evidence put before it from any source and will decide on Section 34 LPS criteria — not on Council's 16 March resolution.
Where the TPC diverged from Council / IreneInc
[00:35:10 – 00:50:14]
Tinderbox East LCZ justification (the "height risk" argument) was not supported by evidence. Panel accepts for now but east-side parcels are the weakest retention of the day.
[04:17:00 – 04:25:00]
LCZ inside the Urban Growth Boundary (Kingston & Kingston Beach / Baronia Hill) flagged as STRLUS-inconsistent; accepted as anomalous for this process only.
[04:41:40 – 04:46:15]
Bonnet Hill LDRZ pocket outside the UGB flagged as STRLUS-inconsistent; panel put Council on notice to revisit.
[02:33:54]
In Kettering West, the panel effectively forced concession that the Priority Vegetation overlay does the landscape-protection work, not the zone: narrowing grounds for LCZ retention in marginal cases.
[05:50:30]
Individual small cleared residential lots (e.g. Kingston West, Neika) currently inside LCZ can still be argued out via representations.
[06:45:48]
Council's 16 March "least restrictive alternative" resolution read into the record and explicitly NOT accepted as binding: the Commission will decide on Section 34 LPS criteria.
Where the TPC agreed with Council / IreneInc
[02:04:40 – 02:12:25]
Kettering East & Oyster Cove: full transition from ELZ to Rural Living Zone (no further subdivision). The largest LCZ retreat of the day.
[04:29:00 – 04:38:00]
Albion Heights: full RLZ transition.
[00:59:00 – 01:03:00]
Howden & Blackmans Bay: full RLZ transition.
[01:29:00 – 01:34:00]
Margate & Electrona: mixed zoning approach (Blue Rural / Red RLZ / Van Moray LCZ / Yellow agricultural).
[01:56:00 – 02:03:30]
Snug / Old Station Road: Rural Zone (not RLZ) on the former PPZ footprint.
[02:20:00 – 02:36:00]
Kettering West: Rural for western edge, RLZ for Groombridges, LCZ for the elevated yellow block.
[02:36:25 – 04:08:30]
LCZ retained as exhibited across Woodbridge, Birchs Bay, Flowerpot, Middleton and the bulk of Gordon.
[00:20:00 – 00:22:15]
Tinderbox West: RLZ (no further subdivision).
[06:00:00]
Leslie Vale: as exhibited.
[06:16:00 – 06:24:00]
Longley & Lower Longley: as exhibited plus part of 137 Anderson Road to Rural Zone. Risk rated low: the only explicit low-risk rating of the day.
Updated cues for your representation
Each point below is drawn from what a TPC delegate actually said on Day 1 or Day 2. Points 1–5 carry forward from Day 1; points 6–10 are new from Day 2.
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 those overlays already make damaging development discretionary. Nick Heath confirmed this at Kettering West [02:33:54]: the overlay carries the load on vegetation clearance regardless of zone.
Challenge the landscape-values evidence on your locality.
Community consultation required under STRLUS CV4.1 has not occurred on the IreneInc statement (Day 1 finding, carried forward). On Day 2, the statements did not clearly discriminate Tinderbox East from Howden.
Challenge the risk rating.
Low/medium/high ratings remain judgement calls. Kate operationalised them on Day 2 but the panel accepted them only as a rule of thumb, not a defined threshold.
Do not assume visible rural activity is required for RLZ.
Confirmed and applied across multiple localities on Day 2: Howden, Albion Heights, Kingston West additions.
Ask for landscape values to be embedded.
If your locality's values are not in the scheme as Local Area Objectives or equivalent, argue LCZ is premature.
If you are on Tinderbox East, the Bonnet Hill LDRZ pocket, or a small cleared residential lot inside LCZ:
The panel has flagged these as the weakest recommendations. Well-evidenced representations will land.
Co-ordinate with neighbours locality-by-locality.
The Commission is organising hearings this way. A collective submission plus individual parcel variation is viable and was invited explicitly by Chair Heath.
Do not rely on Council's "least restrictive alternative" framing.
The Commission will decide on Section 34 LPS criteria, not on Council's 16 March resolution.
The evaluation framework is not a statutory instrument.
Kate Heckelmann's own concession [05:53:00]. It is a tool, not a rule: representations can depart from it with good evidence.
Respond by midnight Monday 4 May 2026.
The deadline is hard and fast: Heath's words.
Scope limit: This guide reflects Day 2 only (approximately 7 hours of recording). Bruny Island is not covered: those localities will be dealt with in a future hearing after the Planning Authority completes its Specific Area Plan review (no earlier than 22 May 2026). Always check the primary recording, the IreneInc report, and the letter from the Commission about your specific property before finalising your representation.