Shocking waste of public funds at this critical time

CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE

LETTER TO ALL COUNCILLORS
Sent: Thursday, 28 Jul, 2022 At 11:37 AM 

Subject: Shocking waste of public funds at this critical time 

Mission Australia report shows 1 in 30 Tassie teens 

experienced homelessness for the first time | 

The Examiner | Launceston, TAS 

City of Launceston Councillors,

Along with many, many ratepayers and residents of Launceston, I am shocked and appalled that there is again the prospect of Council approving the expenditure of $600,000 of public funds on an exclusive staff 'end of trip' showering facility for a mere handful of Council staff who choose to travel by bicycle. 

Setting aside the breach of tendering ethics (for which I am very well qualified to comment on, and having also been engaged by your Council to undertake similar projects in Launceston), this proposal to award a lucrative construction contract to a non-tendering party (yes Nick Daking, and I understand that you are presently apprenticed to this favoured building contractor, not that your likely absence from the meeting completely absolves you from question), certainly in this COVID-world and period of homeless and general financial stress, is an appalling use of public funds that ought to be applied to other more-important matters and projects, or simply used to reduce the ever-spiralling budget deficit. 

There is no justification for this expenditure to be made at this point in time, not even as a building stimulus action as clearly from the rather pathetic justification given, the building contractors are so over-stretched as to not need the work !

The proposed contract is over-budget and in my opinion the budgeted cost is excessive in any event for the work outlined.

Bicycles DO NOT need to be stored in an enclosed room, where they will be locked onto racks in any event. The bicycles will not by purpose be left on site overnight. The area in question already has a paved floor and is enclosed by walls on all but one side and has a roof. 

So where is this expenditure justified?.

Quite apart from the capital expenditure for this project, what is the additional impost on the ratepayer for the regular maintenance that will be required throughout the day? 

What is the budget allocation for this?

It is not as if where at home, your mother will be yelling at you to clean and dry out the shower after each use!

Coercing the Benevolent Society into managing 2 showers for 6hrs per week at Kingsmeadows....for the homeless, doesn't sanctify your likely action today to provide luxury accommodation for your personal benefit.

Be reminded that as a part of the Paterson Central mixed development (that you refused a Permit) retail parking office and residential development, your planning staff imposed 'end of trip' facilities to be incorporated.

Had you approved that Development Application, Council staff and you the Councillors would have had convenient and free access to (and the maintenance and cleaning at the Developers expense!) then it would have cost the ratepayers NOTHING.

And so, in conclusion, Please, Please, do not approve this expenditure today. 

Regards, 

Lionel Morrell, 

Architect and President Tasmanian Ratepayers Association Inc. 

POSTSCRIPT: With their second chance to approve this extraordinary and outrageous expenditure, and having mustered the numbers, this extraordinary process was approved with only two Councillors not supporting the proposal.

“You can lament over what could have been, or you can do something bold; use that energy to create an enviable future. It is up to you.” ― Richelle E. Goodrich

QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE - COUNCIL MEETING 18th. May 2022

*

Tasmanian Ratepayers’ Association Inc. 

P.O. Box 1035, 

LAUNCESTON TAS 7250 

03 6331 6144 

11th. May 2022 

Mayor and Councillors City of Launceston Council And 

General Manager Mr Michael Stretton 

QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE - COUNCIL MEETING 18th. May 2022

Dear Councillors, 

1. What is Council’s position regarding the Federal Court Appeal Hearing Ref TAD 50/2021 scheduled for 13/05/2022 Creative Property Holdings Pty Ltd (Trustee) v Carparks Super Pty Ltd (Trustee) and City of Launceston Council (Second Respondent), in relation to disputed Paterson Central Carpark at 41- 55 Paterson Street Launceston, given that in Court documents filed by Simmons Wolfhagen, CoL Council’s submission states: 

2. If the Court determines that there is a currently enforceable contract between the parties, the Second Respondent will comply with any obligations that it has that might arise pursuant to that contract. 

- Does this undertaking mean that CoL Council will again be guarantor? 

- Will CoL Council again provide the deposit from ratepayer’s funds for the purchase contract?  

- Why is CoL Council supporting a private developer’s project in this manner using ratepayer’s funds, when it appears very clear to any reasonable person that this developer has not provided credible evidence that it has the funds available to settle a purchase of this property? 

2. How much of ratepayer’s funds has CoL Council expended to date to advance a development on land at 41-55 Paterson Street, and what additional ratepayer’s funds have been allocated for future development and other costs? (Please provide a full breakdown of each detailed expenditure). 

Yours faithfully, 

Lionel Morrell 

Tasmanian Ratepayers Association Inc. 

Per President, 

L.J.Morrell, 41 High Street Launceston 7250

THE MEMBER FOR BASS' BACKGROUND BRIEFING ... FAKE NEWS OR NO?

Apparently, at a media background briefing in Bass it has been revealed that the long-promised BBRF grant of $10m, purportedly for drought relief, that cannot be spent within the time limits due to developer Mr. C Billing’s spectacular failure a few months ago to win his Federal Court Case. 

In court, Mr. C Billing attempted to claim ‘ownership’ of the Paterson Central Carpark site in Central Launceston and the court found otherwise. 

Apparently, almost at the stroke of midnight for the calling of the Federal Election, this ‘drought grant’ seems to have been reallocated? If it has, the City of Launceston Council should be able to provide details. 

However, in response to a question Council management played the ‘dead bat answer’ technique, saying that there is “Nothing to Report”! How can this be? In fact, how can the elected representatives let it stand? 

IF the insiders at Town Hall are not telling Councillors and their constituency information they need right NOW in order to make informed decisions at ‘election time’ why not? 

IF the city’s elected representatives and Council’s executive – all on mega salaries – cannot provide insights in regard to such anticipated expenditure shifts why not? What legitimate ‘commercial in confidence’ or ‘operational issues’ could possibly be in play here? 

Apparently, Launceston’s brand new front line project that is said to have “strong community interest, benefit and support” for this money is that it goes to a developer’s vision, namely the kanamaluka CULTURAL CENTRE - a $60m so-called landmark arts facility, hoped to be a real vote winner for Bass Member Archer. .

Bass voters with an eye on the electorate’s real needs harbour deeply felt hopes and aspirations. They see that such a use of this PUBLIC MONEY is what it would be, a bizarre misuse of funds, if diverted to this purpose.

With the inevitability of the ‘cultural centre’ sitting right on the flood plain, not even in Northern NSW or Queensland could this deal float in a climate change world. 

With failed flood mitigation infrastructure leaving the diabolic devastation that it did in Lismore that we have all witnessed on our TVs for weeks now – we are alert to the folly. 

As surely as day follows night Launceston’s so called ‘flood mitigation’ will be exposed to an extreme weather event and, like in Lismore, the flood plain will flood. 

Anyone who remembers the 2016 flood in Launceston will know that the city’s levy banks came within “an inch or two” of failing. 

But is this just fake news? If so, why is it apparently being hinted at during a background press briefing? Who has lost that recently much spoken of 'Moral Compass' that guides good people at times like this?

There are more questions but these here need to be answered first.

LAUNCESTON IN SOLIDARITY

 

“If we know, then we must fight for your life as though it were our own -which it is- and render impassable with our bodies the corridors to the gas chamber. For if they come for you in the morning, they will be coming for us that night.” ... James Baldwin

LAUNCESTON IN SOLIDARITY WITH THE UKRAINE PEOPLE

• 
  Russia encircles
• “Do not let the behavior of others destroy your inner peace.”
• Dalai Lama
• 
• 



eBAYlink

• LINK

If you want to make peace with your enemy, 

you have to work with your enemy. 

Then he becomes your partner.

Nelson Mandela

HAS LAUNCESTON ACTUALLY GOT THE CAPACITY TO LEAD? OR, WILL THIS COUNCIL PERSIST WITH IS 'NEAR ENOUGH IS GOOD ENOUGH' STANCE?

 

GO TO CENTRAL COAST COUNCIL POLICY: https://www.centralcoast.tas.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/2021-Greening-Central-Coast-Strategy.pdf

Launceston Council's February 10 agenda is not yet published but it is reported that there will be an agenda item to do with, wait for it, GREENING LAUNCESTON! Notably, its reported that it comes about as a knee jerk reaction to that august body, the Launceston Chamber of Commerce, and it's 'initiative' to encourage/whatever the council to, presumably deliver on its 2019 'CLIMATE EMERGENCY POLICY' – something that 'this bunch of Councillors' has avoided doing anything about in reality.

Local Governments throughout Australia not only have such policies, they are being very active relative to their determinations. 

In Launceston the chain dragging is palpable and if one dare ask anyone, Councillor or officer, you'll get 'we cannot do that sort of change just yet' ... 'this is hard and we are constrained by this or that'  ... and it goes on and on and on and tediously.

AND, this Council has spent $8.1 million dollar of ratepayers money on a landfill cell all the time mouthing support for ZERO WASTE. Can anyone spot the credibility gap?

In the end it is all empty rhetoric! Meanwhile, Tasmania's Central Coast Council is in front and centre building upon its past and rather environmentally sensitive policy sets and always looking to 'up the anti'. In fact, in that administration there has been some interest in the 12 questions a Launceston Ratepayer has put to Council, alongside the Chamber of Commerce's apparent advocacy, and that is more than interesting.

The Central Coast Council turns out to be a leader and as for Launceston's Council you might say .................

Doreen Bowen

Controversial car park gets new $60m proposal after Federal Court decision

DECEMBER 2 2021 - 4:30AM 

Controversial car park gets new $60m proposal after Federal Court decision 

Nick Clark

An artist impression of a proposed five level building at the Paterson Street Central car park. An artist impression of a proposed five level building at the Paterson Street Central car park. A $60 million investment project for the Paterson Street Central car park has been lodged with the City of Launceston council by owners Don and Janet Allen. 

Car Parks Super director Don Allen lodged the development application just days after a Federal Court judge dismissed a claim by Creative Property Holdings that a sale contract for the car park be enforced............................. CPH, which proposed a $90 million Creative Precinct on the site, is looking at alternative sites. Federal and State Governments committed about $23 million to the proposal. ............................ Mr Allen said the mixed use development would comprise five levels on the site adjacent to the former Birchalls store and present Myer store. ............................ The proposed development would include retail shops on the ground level, three levels of public car parking of about 234 spaces and a roof top level featuring eight, three-bedroom residential apartments. ............................ The Paterson St Central car park site at 41-43 Paterson St is the subject of a new development proposal The Paterson St Central car park site at 41-43 Paterson St is the subject of a new development proposal ............................ Car Parks Super received approval for a similar development in 2007 and the proposal has been updated by ARTAS Architects. ............................ Mr Allen said he was pleased to be able to proceed with the development to the benefit of shoppers and retailers after the Federal Court of Australia decision............................. "This development will expand the very popular car park and strengthen the retail and commercial heart of the city through a civically responsible development," he said. ............................ He said that it was intended that future progressive conversion of upper parking levels to other uses could be made if car parking facilities were no longer necessary. ............................ "There will be re-charging facilities for electric cars while they park, solar energy collection panels for the apartments and stormwater collected for their garden watering systems," he said. ............................ Mr Allen said he had received support from property owners and retailers as well as having been recognised as a Key City Project by the City of Launceston's Council's Consultants, Ratio Consultants in the Central Development Strategy.

Please click on the image to enlarge

CLICK  HERE TO SEE THIS STORY

MEDIA RELEASE Exciting Development for Central Launceston Unveiled

CAR PARKS SUPER PTY LTD ACN 607 566 094 ATF THE ALLEN FAMILY SUPERANNUATION FUND P.O Box 32 HAGLEY TAS 7292 Tel. 0418 376 276 

M e d I a  r e l e a s e  Issued Dec 1, 2021 

Exciting Development for Central Launceston Unveiled

Directors Don and Janet Allen are lodging a Development Application with City of Launceston Council for a 5 Level Mixed Use Development above their present Launceston PATERSON STREET CENTRAL CARPARK (fronting Paterson St and behind Myer and the old Birchalls shops)

This is an up-dated version of a previously - approved development, but will now as re-designed by local architects ARTAS of Launceston, comprise ‘active frontage’ retail shops at Ground Level, with

• three levels of public car parking above (totalling around 234 spaces), then 
• a roof-top level with 8 luxury 3-bedroom residential apartments capturing sunny views of the surrounding cityscape. 

In line with current public expectations, it is intended that the frame structure of the building and ceiling heights will allow future progressive conversion of upper parking levels to other uses (offices etc.) should carparking facilities of this nature and dimension no longer be necessary or viable; provide re-charging for electric cars whilst parking; entail solar energy collection panels for the apartments and collect stormwater for their garden watering systems. 

The lodgement of a new proposal follows a frustrating period in recent years for this local property owner, culminating in their successful fending-off of Creative Property Holdings Pty Ltd, who were keen to acquire the development rights to the land in league with Launceston Council following Council’s controversial purchase of the old Birchalls shops. 

These shops continue to remain empty although fronting Brisbane Street Mall. Last week, CPH resoundingly lost their action seeking to take over the present car park in a decision handed down by the Australian Federal Court. 

Mr. Allen said “he was pleased to now be in a position to progress his long – intended plans to expand this very popular car park and benefit shoppers and retailers in the area, strengthening the retail and commercial heart of the city and by proposing a civically responsible development.” 

The development is supported by property owners and retailers as well as having been recognized as a Key City Project by Council’s Consultants, Ratio Consultants P/L in the Central Development Strategy being part of Launceston Liveability, that would maximise the utility of all-weather parking resources for shoppers and visitors, encouraging retail expansion, residential apartments and much-needed toilet and baby-change facilities accessed via existing pedestrian linkages to/from the Mall. 

The project has been given an inspiring ‘tick of endorsement’ by respected expert Robert Cotgrove, a retired Tasmanian UTAS lecturer, who has spent his professional life as an urban geographer and transport economist, interests that he has continued into retirement. 

“I consider Don Allen's proposed development ought to be given approval by LCC. It not only provides valuable off-street parking, a scarce resource in Launceston's CBD, but its capacity of over [230] cars would provide accessibility not only to the retail establishments of the building but to other commercial enterprises in the area.

” Footnote: Robert D M (Bob) Cotgrove, Fellow Chartered Institute of Logistics & Transport, Life Member Aust. Inst. of Geographers, Member Economic Society of Aust. BA with Hons (Geography), Master of Transport Economics, Master of Science (Economics) University College London, Bachelor of Dementia Care. 

END

There is a looming cloud over integrity and credibility in Launceston

 

Judge finds no binding car park sale contract existed 

 Nick Clark ... Local News  ...  IMAGE An early simulation of the Creative Precinct vision 

 A $90 million Creative Precinct in the Launceston CBD is in doubt after the proponent failed in a legal bid to have a $12 million contract for the sale of the key Paterson Street car park enforced. ..................... Federal Court of Australia Justice David O'Callaghan dismissed a claim by Creative Property Holdings that there was ever a binding contract with the car park owner, Car Parks Super in November last year. ..................... He ordered CPH to pay costs. ..................... Parties were given seven days to make submissions about a $1.2 million deposit that was paid and then shunted between solicitors for the parties. ..................... "It is not altogether clear [to me] where and by whom monies representing the deposit are currently held, or even whether there is any disagreement about the question of refunding it," Justice O'Callaghan said ..................... The car park at 41-43 Paterson Street, known as the Birchalls car park, was to be the site of the Creative Precinct facilitated by CPH director Christopher Billing and the idea attracted the support of at least $20 million in federal and state government funding. ..................... The City of Launceston council was the guarantor for the obligations of Mr Billing for early proposed car park contracts in June and September last year. ..................... Mr Billing said he was disappointed with the decision relating to the specific claim presented to the court. ..................... "[CPH] and its stakeholders will now be considering all its legal options as well alternative sites for the Creative Precinct," he said. ..................... Car Park Super Pty Ltd director Don Allen said: "We are pleased to hear that the judgement confirmed that there was no contract in existence for the sale of our car park property and that there was no case proven for misleading conduct". ..................... Launceston mayor Albert van Zetten said the City of Launceston would now consider a number of options. ..................... "This will occur over the coming weeks and we will have more to say in due course," he said. ..................... "In regards to the creative precinct itself, that's a matter for Creative Property Holdings." ..................... Cr van Zetten said the council maintained its view that a centrally located bus interchange was an important strategic objective for the city. ..................... Discussion of council options has included compulsory acquisition. ..................... Justice O'Callaghan said that "both the applicant and the respondent at various different times seemed to have lacked enthusiasm to complete the transaction". ..................... He said that no binding contract was deemed to have been completed because there was no exchange of counterpart contracts in what was a "well-known, common and customary method of dealing". ..................... Justice O'Callghan said the parties argued the case by reference to an agreed bundle of documents and a hearing in October. ..................... "No witnesses were called," he said. ..................... "The applicant sought to rely on an affidavit of Christopher Billing dated 28 September 2021, but his evidence was irrelevant because it went to the deponent's subjective intentions." ..................... "I accordingly declined to admit it into evidence. The parties agreed that the relevant intention of the parties is to be determined objectively on the basis of the exchanged correspondence." 

Millions of Dollars, 11 Questions and a Court Case

CLICK HERE FOR THE SOURCE STORY

The Examiner reported on the case between Creative Property Holdings and Car Parks Super was heard on Friday, and such was the convoluted nature of the submissions the presiding Justice remarked it would be "unthinkable" for him to have made a determination before being led through the circumstances.

Well 'His Honour' was right on the money as so, so, many questions hang in the air, the answers to which are bound to impact upon Launceston's ratepayer – and potentially rather heavily.

Always remembering that Justice David O'Callaghan has extended five times since June 8, 2021 the time for the applicant (CPH) to file and serve its written submissions. The last extension was for Friday. CPH director Chris Billing did not provide an update. 

So, to the questions and only some of which have been complied here. They, and the context notes, have been compiled from various sources.

QUESTIONS

1  Looking back, and now ahead, what real 21st C need has this project been devised to serve?

• Under pressure from St John Street property owners because of significant anti-social behaviour by bus patrons at the present on-street bus interchange there and severe impacts on retailers, Council investigated alternatives. The Consultant's Report investigated a number of alternatives, initially excluding the Paterson Street Car Park area and Dechaineaux Way. 

• The preferred on-street locations outside Paterson Pilgrim Church and Creche and in the next block outside the State Public Buildings, drew criticism from the Church and State Government, due to the transfer of Anti-social behaviour. 

• Metro published its opposition to Paterson Street relocations and in doing so said "Metro believes that relocating Launceston's CBD bus interchange away from their current positions in St John Street would be detrimental to bus patrons and may hurt city businesses." 

• Undeterred, Council directed its consultants to review its report and include the privately-owned Paterson Central Carpark site with Dechaineax Way as their preferred Bus Interchange location. The owner of the car park site was not consulted, and learned of the selection and a development of a private developer's Creative Precinct to be also on its land, from the media.

2 How will ratepayers benefit from this project and at what cost to them? Indeed, is it a cost effective use of ratepayers' monies at any level?

• Metro is a Government Business Enterprise and not a local Government responsibility to fund or give financial support to. Already Council funds the under-whelming Tiger Bus Service, that fails to deliver the transit benefits trumpeted. 

• If Metro doesn't want it, then why is it happening? 

• Other cities keep busses along major roadways.

3 How does this project compare with comparable streetscapeing for like purposes elsewhere?

• That is something that is yet to be explained if there is anyone available to elucidate.

4 Why did Council purchase the defunct Birchalls and Katies shops, alleging this would transform the sadly ailing Brisbane Street Mall if used as a pedestrian way to-and-from the bus interchange?

• At a purchase cost of several millions of dollars above the then market value, why did Council seek a $10M funding grant from the Commonwealth Government's Building Better Regions Fund, a funding pool designated for drought-affected communities, to support the development of a creative precinct and bus interchange in the CBD

• Labor and the Greens accused the Commonwealth Government of blatant pork-barreling over this funding allocation, given Launceston was NOT drought affected, and communities that were, received nothing. 

• Council's invitation to Developers and prospective tenants to undertake the Birchall's project, drew NO REPORTED INTEREST, and the former rate-paying shops continue to generate NIL INCOME to Council. 

• Council has reportedly spent $M's of funding on preparation of plans and concepts and published NO RESULTS to its ratepayers.

5 Is it really necessary to acquire this land for a 'Bus Station' anyway?

• Council has not articulated a rationale for the purchase and by-and-large all discussion on the subject has been behind closed doors.

6 Who was it that developed the initial proposal to acquire the Paterson Central Carpark site, anyway? 

• Following media publicity about the project and assertions that Council had already purchased the car park, the private owner was approached by Director Christopher Billing of a company called "Ebenezer", as his proposed purchaser of the car park. 

• The private owner of the car park indicated a refusal to sell the carpark, but told Council it may consider a proposal that in return transferred some equivalent Council-owned car parks to the owner's car parking portfolio. 

• Although initially considered a possibility by Council's CEO, the proposal was turned down. 

• Mr Billing continued to chase the owner, by this stage using another of his companies, and telling the owner that if a sale to his company did not occur, that Council would move to compulsorily acquire the carpark. 

• At a meeting and communications between the Council ( Mayor, CEO) and the private owner, the prospect of compulsory acquisition was indicated. 

• For a period of more than 6 months, Mr Billing continued to chase the owner on virtually a daily basis, offering multiple proposals on price and conditions and eventuating in failed settlement terms, both with and without Council acting as the guarantor to the proposal, finally ending in legal action by Mr Billing's company in the Australian Federal Court.

7  Who is Christopher Billing, and what businesses does he operate? 

• Over a protracted period, and at the same time as floating the Creative Precinct project, Mr Billing's Foundry Company has attracted media attention against claims of non-payment of staff entitlements, alleged eviction by landlords for non-payment of rents, vacant premises and non-completion of educational contracts for students. 

• Foundry no longer appears to offer face to face educational and vocational training in Launceston, and Mr Billing has most-recently been confirmed as residing in Sydney, presumably from where he directs his businesses in an on-line format.

8  Why does the City of Launceston continue to persist with this project given that it arguably poses risks to future ratepayers as a consequence of an arguably flawed planning and business proposition? 

•  UTAS academic and transportation expert Bob Cotgrove (Urban Geographer and Transport Economist) has written extensively on this matter, and says "Planners must face cold, hard reality - (in a Launceston context) cars are irreplaceable". He is quoted as saying "The effect of restricting car parking in the CBD... would simply strangle the CBD." For "the viability of Launceston's CBD [should] encourage more to attract customers and ensure that such parking is unobtrusive and as attractive as possible." 

• Launceston's CEO, to the contrary, has said "Carparks do not attract people to visit and/or work in the city, will not generate additional employment or activation." 

• Paterson Central Carpark provides 125 car parking spaces and they are in high demand. 

• The private owner believes the carpark is an essential asset to the Brisbane St Mall traders and if it ceases, it would render severe impacts on the retailing and commercial activities of the Central Area. This view is backed up by expert evidence that Paterson Central Carpark is "the most popular carpark in Tasmania and surpasses the best in Hobart". 

• It has always been the stated intention of the owner to retain Paterson Central Carpark and as economic circumstances allow, further expand its capacity to as much as 429 parking spaces (see DA 0647/2007) previously approved for a (then) $20M Car Park and Retail Development. 

• None of the adjoining property owners have expressed support for a Bus Interchange or loss of the carpark on this site, in fact to the contrary.

9 Are the funds applied for by Launceston Council for 'Drought Relief' for the drought Launceston did not actually experienced still destined for this project?

• Council has not indicated any further advice that it has received from the Federal Government in regard to this matter and as time passes it becomes more and more unclear.

10 Why should ratepayers 'gift a development opportunity' to a speculative developer who is highly unlikely to provide an ongoing dividend via rates? Indeed, given the 'State Govt Loan Funds' can their use be truly justified in terms of the level of debt ratepayers will be required to service going forward.

• Council has not indicated to ratepayers why this should be so in the current political and fiscal environment..

11 Why does the City of Launceston continue to persist with this project given that it arguably poses risks to future ratepayers as a consequence of a now arguably flawed planning proposition?

• Council has committed itself somewhat heavily to this 'development' and by all accounts it has already expended significant monies on developing plans plus a significant sum to acquire the defunct Birchalls and Katies shops, It seems that the situation will not be any clearer until early 2022 when and if Australian Federal Court. the hands down a determination in regard to the current case before it and that surely will impact upon Council decision making ... hopefully before the 2022 Local Government Elections.

MORE AND MORE QUESTIONS FOR LAUNCESTON'S TOWN HALL

An ongoing saga about the purchase of the Launceston Myer carpark is likely to drag into 2022 following the Federal Court of Australia hearing a near-five-hour case detailing prolonged and "curious" interactions. 

The case between Creative Property Holdings and Car Parks Super was heard on Friday, and such was the convoluted nature of the submissions the presiding Justice remarked it would be "unthinkable" for him to have made a determination before being led through the circumstances. ..................... The court heard of a contract disagreement that first started in June 2020 that was still not resolved when legal proceedings commenced almost a year later, and that those legal proceedings now hinged on the objective interpretation of one "critical document". ..................... That "critical document" was an email between conveyancing lawyers for CPH and CPS on November 20 last year detailing the requirements for a contract, the third contract about the sale, was finalised. ..................... Legal representative for CPH, the group purchasing the car park, Chris Gunson SC told Justice David O'Callaghan his client was confident a contract regarding the sale had initially been entered into, and that contract had never been broken despite ongoing grievances and concerns being worked through. ..................... The court heard that contract was for the sale of 41-43 Paterson Street, the Myer car park, for $12 million with a deposit of $1.2 million set to be paid. ..................... The deposit became a point of contention through the course of the Friday hearing, with Mr Gunson telling the court it was proof of a continual contract throughout the back-and-forth between the two parties. ..................... He told the court that the deposit had then been withheld and released in "bad faith", before being released once legal proceedings had commenced "for no reason other than to bolster an assertion the deposit had never been paid". ..................... Legal representative for CPS, the group selling the car park, Shaun McElwaine SC was adamant the deposit had been forfeited to his client due to a contract breach by CPS. ..................... "Your Honour should find there was a material breach of their [Creative Property Holdings'] contract in the failure to pay the deposit [in the timeframe]," Mr McElwaine said. ..................... He said the failure came as a result of "completion [not being] achieved on a stipulated date". ..................... "That amounts to a fundamental breach, it justifies termination ... the deposit in that event is forfeited to the vendor," he said. ..................... Mr McElwaine told the court that forfeiture related to a June contract that "was never signed by the vendor", but was signed by CPS and the council. ..................... The court heard two other contracts were at least floated in October and November. ..................... The court heard the $1.2 million deposit was initially paid by the City of Launceston Council, acting as guarantor for Creative Property Holdings, but the council started to "lose its enthusiasm for settlement or its ongoing involvement" and "demanded the return of the deposit". ..................... Despite the deposit debate, the main point of contention put forward by Mr Gunson and Mr McElwaine was a dispute between whether or not a formal contract had ben maintained throughout the continued squabble. ..................... Mr Gunson told the court when legal representatives for the council sent through a contract by the close of business on November 24 through which council acted as guarantor for the car park's purchase, as detailed by the "critical document", "everything that had been sought ... had been done in the terms proposed". ..................... "We say at that point a binding contract came into existence," Mr Gunson said. Mr Gunson detailed to the court a relatively cavalier approach to contract negotiations that resulted in the November 20 email marking a finalisation of an agreement to purchase, which otherwise would have to have been subject to a "ceremonial exchange of contracts". ..................... He told the court that a formal exchange was merely "an administrative formality". ..................... Mr McElwaine detailed how language used in contract negotiations had not been cavalier, and instead had been typical of conveyancing law. ..................... He told the court without the formal exchange of specific contractual documents, there had been no contract. ..................... He told the court, as a result, the November 20 email should not have been misrepresented by CPH as constituting a legitimate exchange of contract. ..................... Justice O'Callaghan said he would preside over what he had heard through the court sitting, but that it was unlikely he would reach a decision before early next year.

The car park at the centre of a Federal Court battle was not the target of compulsory acquisition by the state government, owners were assured last year. ... The advice that "the Crown is not seeking to compulsorily acquire this property" came in correspondence to Car Park Super directors Don and Janet Allen dated November 25, 2020. ..................... The Examiner has sighted the correspondence. ..................... Car Parks Super own the Paterson Street Central car park which is the proposed site for a Creative Precinct. ..................... Creative Property Holdings, the company which proposed the precinct, is taking legal action against Car Parks Super in the Federal Court. ..................... Despite extensive ongoing negotiations between the parties since June last year, no sale was ever finalised. ..................... In recent correspondence sighted by The Examiner, CPH said: "CPH is doing all it can in an effort to rearrange its financing proposals, but as of this time has not been able to arrange its finances in such a way as to place it in a position where an unconditional offer can be put". ..................... The company said that an offer on terms more favourable than previously proposed by CPH was creating "significant difficulty". Federal Court documents reveal contracts were proposed at a price of $12 million last year. ..................... The state government has provided a $6 million interest free loan to the council for use in the proposed development and federal government funds of about $17.5 million are available. ..................... State Growth Minister Roger Jaensch said: "I understand the property remains the subject to a contract for sale and that there is currently a legal process underway between the vendor and private developer". ..................... "Any acquisition of land by the Crown is undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1993." Under the act, compulsory acquisition is possible for public purposes including transport and education. ..................... When asked about compulsory acquisition, Launceston Mayor Albert van Zetten said the council was eager to see a strategic, higher order use for the site as soon as possible. ..................... "However, the acquisition of the site is currently before the federal court and we expect a resolution in the near future," he said. "Until that time it would be inappropriate to provide further comment or engage in hypotheticals." ..................... Justice David O'Callaghan has extended five times since June 8, 2021 the time for the applicant (CPH) to file and serve its written submissions. The last extension was to 4pm yesterday. CPH director Chris Billing did not provide an update.

TIME IN LAUNCESTON

CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE VIDEO

2014 Press Release

Metro believes that relocating Launceston’s CBD bus interchange away from their current position in St Johns St would be detrimental to bus patrons and may hurt city businesses.

The vast majority of Metro’s service runs for routes from the city to the surrounding suburbs currently commence or terminate at the St John St interchange.

Each year we have more than 470,000 boardings on services from the CBD interchange by commuters, students, shoppers, people coming to the city to access health and other services and visitors.

Our concern is that proposals to relocate the bus interchange away from the CBD, as floated by the Launceston City Council at the CityProm Members event last week, could make bus travel less convenient and may deter people from travelling into the city on buses.

Among the options floated include retaining the current bus stop and interchange with some relatively minor changes, relocating those services to the Cimitiere Street Transit Centre, making St John Street one-way and locating bus stops and shelters in the centre of the street to remove congestion from footpaths or moving services to some other transit centre location.

Crucial to any decision will be to understand what bus patrons, businesses and the Launceston community actually want, so we agree that broad consultation should be a key element of the City Heart Project and encourage bus passengers and others to make their views known to the Council.

Mass public transport provides many social, economic and environmental benefits. Public transport helps address social exclusion by making transport to services more accessible. 

It reduces traffic congestion and pollution and businesses benefit from the number of people who start or finish their journeys in the city.

One of Metro’s key goals is to increase bus patronage. We aim to achieve that by making bus travel more convenient and a better experience through initiatives like the introduction of Greencard, and Journey Planner, the progressive replacement of old buses with modern, low emission and wheelchair accessible buses and security cameras to improve passenger safety.

We’re also reviewing routes across the state with the aim of speeding up travelling times and improving the reliability of published bus service times. 

Metro knows from its own surveys of bus patrons that as well as bus fares, convenience and regularity of services are also major factors in people’s choices of whether to use a car or take a bus.

Imagine the traffic and parking problems that would arise if many people, instead of travelling on buses, chose to come into the city by car.

Or, instead of going into the city at all, decided to go elsewhere to shop.

We are currently working with Launceston City Council and CityProm on a Bus Interchange Review group and are more than happy to continue to work with them and the Department if Infrastructure, Energy and Resources to find ways to improve facilities and services in Launceston’s CBD.

However, Metro’s strong preference is to retain the current interchange but to improve the service for passengers and the amenity for adjacent businesses and pedestrians.

COMMENT: 2021

Albeit with the wisdom of hindsight, it turns out that Launceston Town Hall's plan to toy with 'theatre bizarre', social engineering and ‘civic planning' all at once has been among the greatest of follies in the city's history. In fact, if it wasn't actually calamitous it would actually be some weird form of theatre bizarre – black comedy too perhaps. 

Arguably ‘the plan’ – such as it was – had as much relevance and usefulness as that rather old metaphor, the “ashtray on a motor bike”. Useful information badly written is way more valuable than useless, misguided and ill-informed concepts ‘properly written and cleverly drawn’ in bureaucratise without errors of spelling or grammar. 

It turns out that poor research, hubris and blatant cockiness, in the end just does not cut it. 

In the 2021 we need to be reimaging public transport, not tinkering with bus stops. We need to reimagine what were once ‘roads’ as all sorts of different things. We might do so, provided that the ‘think tank’ has the brightest, the most creative, the most educated, the most discriminating ‘thinkers’ in the room. 

As for the others, well Mark Twain (1835-1910) said it best, “it is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.” 

Time is a terrifying judge when it comes to foolishness and currently it seems that it is handing down its verdict in a car park just around the corner from Launceston’s Town Hall. The wise judges tell us that the real fault is to have the fault and amendment is both unlikely and evasive. 

Dr. Tandra Vale Sept v2021