A legal battle over a proposed social housing development in New Town is continuing to delay the project, with the latest chapter unfolding in the Supreme Court.
The development on the corner of Sunnyside Road and Paviour Street was given the green light by the Hobart City Council in February 2023.
It includes plans to build 22 units, a mix of one and two-bedroom dwellings, for Centacare Evolve clients on land owned by Homes Tasmania.
Local resident Paul Jacobs launched an appeal with the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (TASCAT) a month later over concerns about overshadowing, parking, access, density and private open space.
TASCAT dismissed the appeal, but Jacobs escalated the matter to the Supreme Court.
The dispute centres on the interpretation of a planning scheme requirement that dwellings must have ‘private open space oriented to take advantage of available sunlight’.
Acting Justice David Porter ruled on Friday that TASCAT was mistaken in its decision by interpreting the requirement to mean that private open spaces should be oriented northwards.
“I am satisfied the Tribunal erred in law in its approach and that the grounds are made out,” he said.
“What is required … is an assessment of the sunlight available to the site and then an examination of whether the private open space is positioned so as to take advantage of that sunlight.”
“To that extent, the test requires a qualitative analysis, not a generalised quantitative assessment of positioning by reference to north.”
The appeal was allowed, the TASCAT decision was set aside and the matter was sent back to the tribunal for reconsideration.
In 2023, Centacare chief executive Ben Wilson expressed disappointment with the initial appeal, noting that the project had already been approved by the council.
“These sorts of projects are absolutely critical, particularly in the type of location that we’re talking about, New Town, close to services, transportation and a great development to be delivered there,” he said.
“We hoped that the residents understood what we’re trying to achieve as a community housing provider, and the need for people to be housed.”
“I would certainly hope that any NIMBY-ism, or concern around social housing, is not a driver for why this appeal has been lodged.”
Centacare was ordered to pay the costs for the Supreme Court appeal.
