The proponents use Social Media (FACEbook) to put their side of this debacle, an expensive exercise that at face value articulates both governance and operational failures that as it turns out:
- Cost Council very little – except the time and resources provided for the purpose;
- Cost 'the developers' a not insignificant sum;
- Cost the city's reputation, arguably, as "a place open for business" far too much.
THE FACEbook TEXT
"LETS PUT THIS ALL TO REST SO WE CAN MOVE ON - Adam and I would like to lay out our story in our own words – The owner of the property is a good friend, he offered us a great rate on the rent. We contacted the building department and asked if the building on site was suited for the distillery. We have the e-mailed response from that department advising us that is was the correct class of building and we could use it for a distillery. Next we went to the front desk at council and spoke to a planner. Discussing the venture in general terms. We were advised that if a similar business wants to take over a site, then they have existing rights use and would not need an additional permit. We have then assumed that because there was a commercial business vacating the site and it was the right building we could start our venture. The only building modifications we made were to paint the building out, and TasGas spent the day connecting gas mains, same as the do for a normal residence. We bought some equipment we would need, and it was in storage there. We were not operating a distillery on this site at any stage. The council were advised of our activity and sent an intention for infringements notice essentially a stop work notice. We contacted the council to see what the issues was; this is when we were advised that there was not the correct existing rights use on this property as some of the businesses that had been operating in this building had been doing so without the correct permits. At this point we engaged Rebecca Green and Assoc. to act on our behalf and discuss with council what our options were. After many meetings, council advised that we could apply for a site specific amendment to operate a distillery on this property. Council advised that it was not a guarantee, but it was our best shot and operating on this site. Over the coming months, we had many meetings with planning officers, environmental health officers, both on our site and others of similar scale. We satisfied every concern they had over noise and nuisance factors. The officers charged with investigating our application were satisfied, with some conditions that our venture would not impact on the immediate neighbours significantly. Our business plan and application stated that this was to be a hobby business as Adam and I both work full time. We just wanted to start a small business on our days off and see where it went. We spent time speaking directly to neighbours attached to the property, also the neighbour opposite the drive. 3 of 5 people we spoke to actually signed letters of support for out venture, a forth said she would if needed and the 5th gentleman was non-committal in his comments and said he would read the information pack we left with him. The council did advise that they had received expressions of concern from some members of the public over our venture; however, despite numerous requests by us and Rebecca to ascertain what the concerns were, we were told that they were not official and we were not entitled to see them. It was at this point, with recommendations from the relevant departments within council to approve our application, letters of support from most of the attached neighbours and the verbal support from our Deputy Mayor we decided to pay the fee and submit our application. Another large part of our decision to proceed was the building on the site is a 100m2 concrete structure, clearly not a residential building at all. At no point during the nearly 6 month process, did a single Alderman contact us or Rebecca with their concerns, had they done so, it may have helped clarify the situation. The application was solely to allow a small distillery operation on this site, it was specified that the amendment application was only for drinks manufacture and processing, no other business under this amendment would be allowed. i.e abattoir and/or animal sale yards etc. There were only 7 members of the 12 member council present, they assessed our application, and voted it down. Our application was defeated, we are very disappointed as you can imagine. As council stated, they are in favour of our venture, just not in that location. We disagree and feel it would be a great location; however we can only apply, and in this case were unsuccessful. Where to from here; we have been humbled by and really appreciate the public outpouring of support for our venture, we are now in the process of finding alternatives. We hope to have an update for you in the coming weeks."
No comments:
Post a Comment