DEVELOPER'S LAMENT

 

'Like booking in with the King': Tasmanian developer tees off at council red tape Hamish Geale By Hamish Geale Updated April 9 2026 - 1:05pm, first published 11:32am 

 Tasmanian developer Errol Stewart has teed off at council red tape, comparing obtaining a building permit to getting a meeting with King Charles. 

The JMC managing director is midway through several major projects across the state, including the 23-unit Rose Lane development in South Launceston.

Developer Errol Stewart has teed off at Tasmania's unwieldy regulatory processes. Picture by Phillip Biggs, Craig George 

He said getting a project to the building stage was "worse than pulling teeth". 

"Trying to get permits to build Rose Lane ... it's like getting a meeting with the King - I reckon I'd get a meeting with King Charles easier than I'd get a permit," he said. 

The Examiner council reporter Joe Colbrook sits down with City of Launceston chief executive 

Sam Johnson to talk mistakes, learnings, and how council can move forward. Video by Paul Scambler 

"The councils have made it so difficult to get permits, it's no wonder there's no housing. 

"We just give them document after document, but it's no different anywhere - whether it's Clarence, Kingston or Launceston - the same bashing your head against a wall, and unless the government fix it they're never going to get housing off the ground."

Mr Stewart's JMC is known as the company behind many key developments in Tasmania, including Silo Hotel and Seaport in Launceston, and a $35 million beach hotel proposal in the North-West. 

King Charles during a visit to Australia in 2024. Picture by Keegan Carroll 

After landing on the final designs for Rose Lane in mid-2025, JMC has been waiting to start construction at Rose Lane for four months. 

Mr Stewart conceded the site's history as a former tip had added an extra later of difficulty, but said the process was still far too cumbersome. 

"There's just that much process in approvals now - you get a planning permit, you get a building permit, you've got to get a building surveyor to sign off the building permit, the building permit goes to the council, the council write 1000 conditions on a planning permit, and by the time you answer every condition you're months and months and months out," he said.

"It's the same in Kingston, I've been trying to get a permit to build 17 units - I'm two years in and I haven't got a permit yet. 

"It's bloody hard work and bloody frustrating." 

The Rose Lane site (bottom right) in South Launceston. Picture by Craig George 

Mr Stewart said he believed there was a culture in councils to do "anything they possibly can" to make it harder for developers. 

"They almost think a developer's out to do something wrong rather than to say 'right, Errol's got a project here, he wants to build 20 units - how can we get that to go?' [But] it's completely the opposite. 

"They'll say 'oh no, that's rubbish' but I can tell you it's not rubbish, it's absolute fact. They have a cultural thing against developers that they think developers are all trying to rip them off." 

The Local Government Association of Tasmania said better laws were needed to help streamline "well-located and appropriate" development. 

LGAT chief executive Dion Lester said councils had the interests of their local communities front of mind, but were sometimes left hamstrung by the system. "The challenge for councils is that while they are responsible for managing the approvals process, they have no control over the requirements in the legislation," Mr Lester said. 

 Infrastructure Minister Kerry Vincent and LGAT chief executive Dion Lester. Digitally altered image 

"This is a state government responsibility. Unfortunately, in recent years the government's focus has been on minor tweaks to our planning system not based on any demonstrable need. The Development Assessment Panels being the most recent example.

 "The diverting of precious planning resources across state and local governments to address multiple attempts at this reform comes at the cost of far more impactful improvements.

 "The fact is, our current system has never been properly resourced, nor implemented as intended in the legislation."

Infrastructure Minister Kerry Vincent said the development process had "room for improvement", and pointed to the impending overhaul that will transform the Department of State Growth into Building Tasmania. "Building Tasmania will supercharge the delivery of the housing, the roads, the infrastructure our state needs for the future," Mr Vincent said.

 "This work is continuing over coming months and will ensure the state service is best able to support the delivery of key infrastructure and services in Tasmania."

COMMENT

The big problem here is that 'the developer' is right but his assessment is rubbish! As for Local Govt they have not lost the plot because by-and-large they under the current Act they do not really have one. So, you cannot lose what you do not have BY DESIGN. Strategically Councils under the Act are PURPOSELESS as essentually under the Act a Council's 'purpose' is to exist. That's a KPI that's automaticlly met. That said, the Act is resplendent with OBJECTIVES all of which are backed up with 'rules-and-regulation'! That's the environment for BUREAUCRATIC SELF SERVICE where the status quo MUST prevail given the enormous salaries the functionaries 'pull' but do not 'earn'. For instance, Launceston's CEO 'pulls;' more than the Premier and represents nobody exept in this case HIMself.

The ELECTED 12 are self-nominated and many are there, as one nameless Councillor points out, "FOR THE BEER!!" In turn the "TAIL WAGGS THE DOG" and that is what 'the developer' is calling out but apparently does not see the underlying problem. The dystopia is palpable and the elected representatives either cannot or will not intiatiate strategic policies and the Minister is tinkering with the status quo and that has been described as being Latin for the mess we are in.

In the end it is 'the governed' who are responsible for their poor governance. With good transparent governance some 'developers' might well be sreaming BLUE BLOODY MURDER if they were to be expected to deliver what they are currently disinclined to do, be accountable and deliver social dividends that matched theirv fiscal rewards!