The Tasmanian Planning Commission, as the body with primary responsibility for approval of planning schemes, is entitled to reject a draft amendment on the basis that it does not represent sound strategic planning, applying the objectives in Schedule 1 of the LUPA Act. The line of authority holding that planning scheme objectives cannot be used to refuse development applications (Von Witt v Hobart City Council) does not apply to the Commission's consideration of amendments to planning schemes. A request for deferral of a planning commission decision made after the hearing has been completed and the decision reserved does not, without more, give rise to a procedural fairness obligation to grant the deferral or to hear the applicant on the request, where the applicant has already been afforded ample opportunity to present its case.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.