GORGE HOTEL Letters to the editor Dec 2

 
Letters to the editor | December 2, 2019

More hotel questions

WELL this Gorge Hotel business has to be the proposal that keeps taking.

To get to the root cause of this mess we need to understand why professional advice, from council officers to councillors, said the proposal was compliant.

So clear was the failure to meet building requirements only two of the four grounds were fully considered by the RMPAT.

Did diligent, professional council planners not consider the Launceston Interim Building Scheme (2015) and how likely a test against those requirements would rule the proposal out?

Who knows what really happened?

We do know that it's a flawed process that delivers a recommendation that fails on appeal.

We need an independent investigation of council processes that delivered this hapless recommendation to councillors.

No doubt there will be some lessons learnt and the cost of the investigation more than likely offset in the near future.

Here in Launceston we have a diligent group of people representing us on council.

They deserve good advice.

And professional planners need to be properly heard without fear or favour (should an investigation suggest this an issue).

Mitchell Dabelstein, Launceston.

Special treatment?

SO Dean Cocker from the JAC Group is re-submitting the Gorge Hotel proposal and expects the Launceston City Council to change its own planning laws to expedite this development.

From what was in the local paper it seems this edifice didn't meet the LCC's own planning laws, yet all but one councillor voted for it to go ahead.

Only one councillor had the guts to go against what he was expected to do.

Should the council change its own planning laws, then can we all expect to be able to build or demolish whatever we want, because they can't do it for one and not do it for the whole group of we ratepayers?

Like the state government, our council seems to be riding roughshod over anyone who threatens the status quo and woe betide anyone who dares go against them.

Someone on the radio on Wednesday likened our state to one going in the direction of a police state and it's not hard to see why.

No consultation and if you protest throw them in jail, probably the one whose location the Liberals didn't tell the residents of Westbury about until they announced it to the media.

Glennis Sleurink, Launceston.

..................................................

COMMENT 

Interesting letters and mostly for the sentiments they project. They raise some interesting side issues. A key factor that has come into play is the issue of professional advice.

Section 65 of the Local Govt Act requires the General Manager to guarantee the advice offered to Council. This is a matter of law!

It is of some interest that the GM once held the position of Director of Planning at Launceston Council. Consequently, the councillors had every right to expect that the advice he and his planning staff offered could/should indeed be relied upon. It has turned out differently.

There is increasing evidence that the City of Launceston needs a root and branch overhaul but the evidence thus far in regard to its 'Strategic Organizational Realignment' is not encouraging as information is drip fed to ratepayers et al. It would seem that anything and everything that can be done to protect senior management from meaningful accountability is being, and will be, done.

Most concerning is the propensity  GM's apparent reliance upon Section 62 of the Local Govt. Act. Basically this emergency provision allows a GM to do almost anything and it is being employed to the Nth Degree – and at the drop of a hat.

NB While all councillors, bar one, voted to approve the Gorge Hotel proposal, Councillor Spenser was not present due to illness.  Thus  he did not vote in support of the proposal. It can only be a matter of speculation as to how he might have voted if he was present to do so.