LAUNCESTON'S RATEPAYER BEING TARGETED FOR A MONEY GRAB

YES, This is nothing more than a massive additional rates grab. 

They are proposing to extend the City Prom boundaries thus:

"While the official boundaries would be decided by a working group, Cityprom's response to the review suggest the boundaries incorporate the Launceston General Hospital, Kings Park and Penny Royal and the Seaport, and out to the Kmart plaza and Racecourse Crescent area." 

The businesses along Charles St have developed and thrived without any City Prom involvement and I doubt any of them want to pay more to have their money spent by someone else, elsewhere . More costs to be added to the bureaucracy as well with a new LCC manager in there somewhere to oversee CityProm. 

• Will CityProm make KMart any more busy? 
• Do they need to pay more rates to get more custom? 

In our opinion, what the businesses should be arguing for is disbanding CityProm altogether. 

Their track record of success in promoting even the current limited boundaries has been an impressive failure, 

What Council should do is hold a plebicite at the next local government elections OR if this council is up for ACCOUNTABILITY let us have a Citizen's Assembly.

IN THE EXAMINER ...  A review of Cityprom could happen in the next six months, after a notice of motion was put forward to the City of Launceston council. ........................ Councillor Rob Soward has put the motion forward asking the general manager to engage with stakeholders, including Cityprom, to review the body and assess whether the needs of the Central Business District are being effectively addressed. ........................ The motion also asks the council to engage with a suitably qualified independent consultant to complete the review, and that it happens within the next six months. ........................ Cr Soward said he believes that it is the council's responsibility to ensure Cityprom is meeting the needs of the CBD. ........................ "According to Cityprom, its purpose is to ensure central Launceston is a vibrant hub for people to live, work, learn, invest, engage, enjoy and experience, through developing and implementing strategies that encourage creativity, entrepreneurship, innovation and sustainable economic growth, establishing Launceston as a great regional city," Cr Soward said. ........................ "Given the dramatic changes, which we have, and continue to experience throughout the Launceston CBD, it is difficult for any such organisations to stay contemporary and relevant." ........................ Cr Soward said it was vital that such organisations engage in periodic review to ensure the best interest for the CBD were being addressed, and said an independent review is what is needed. He said it is not best practise for any organisation to review themselves. ........................ Businesses in the CBD pay a levee, which is collected by the council, to be part of Cityprom. The levee is worth more than half a million dollars. ........................ General manager Michael Stretton said Cr Soward's motion is clear and the justifications all make sense. ........................ The proposed review would cost between $20,000 to $25,000 and budget amendments would have to be made if the council vote to approve the motion. ........................ The meeting will be held on Thursday at 1pm at the Town Hall.

A New Councillor for Launceston

TO READ MORE GO TO

https://ktf7250.blogspot.com/2021/06/new-blood-on-launcestons-council.html

 

LOCAL GOVT TOSH

The "Column inches" stories like this win is an indictment on local governance's ability to actually be useful and serve its constituents. 

For the most part council managements have taken any real decision making away from the elected representatives. Given the way so many councillors/aldermen behave it is possible to see some wisdom in that.

However, on the evidence, far too many 'officers', mainly those in the upper ranks, are about as ill equipped for their responsibilities as the elected reps. The education requirements and domain knowledge required, it seems, is such that local government is all too often left with the dross.

All too often we get a mix of 'past-use-by-date' , 'never-wasers' , 'chancers' ,'intellectually ill equipped' and 'wanabes' grappling with little problems and turning them into monumental issues that finish up costing 'ratepayers' zillions and with nowhere to go.

And the plethora of councils in Tasmania, that situation only exacerbates the folly of conducting the charade that is local government in Tasmania in 2021.

The sooner it is recognised the local government in Tasmania is more than broken and acknowledge that it is dysfunctional, non-performing and way too expensive, the better.

G B Shaw told us long, long ago that "progress is impossible without change; and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything." 

Dr Luther Blissett               t

President Neoism Tasmania

Bullying’ claims as stoush over Richmond’s Pooseum signage heats up 

The owner of Richmond’s Pooseum has levelled accusations of “bullying and discriminating behaviour” at the council, amid a stunning escalation in the battle over the business’s sign. 

Cameron Whiteley, Mercury Subscriber only | May 23, 2021 

Stink over Richmond’s Pooseum signage set to linger Driving force behind first dementia village moves on THE owner of a Richmond museum dedicated to dung has made a formal complaint to the Tasmanian Integrity Commission in the latest chapter of an ongoing saga with the council over a sign in front of her business. 

 Pooseum owner Karin Koch has claimed she is the victim of “bullying and discriminating behaviour” in a drawn-out disagreement with Clarence City Council. The stoush has been ongoing since 2019, which was brought about after Ms Koch did not secure the required planning permit for the sign. Ms Koch opened the Pooseum science museum on Bridge St in 2018 and in December 2019 the council enforced the sign’s removal on grounds relating to streetscape and cultural heritage of the town. Ms Koch was facing a bill of about $1100 to lodge a retrospective application, but more than 1600 people have signed an online petition calling for the original sign to be approved by council and reinstated. ............................... In her letter to the Integrity Commission, Ms Koch said she believed the matter could have been solved quickly and without public attention. “Instead, the council ... has engaged in ongoing bullying and discriminating behaviour to enforce the removal of the sign, because, as a council member told me in a face-to-face meeting, they ‘don’t like it’,’’ she wrote. Ms Koch wrote that there were two aspects to the disagreement — the size of the sign, and the payment of the fee. Following a long period of unsuccessful negotiation, council has issued a notice of intention to enforce, requiring Ms Koch to either obtain a permit for the signage or remove it. ...............................   Council general manager Ian Nelson said the subject of the signage was not the problem, but rather the lack of a completed development application being submitted to council. ............................... “Richmond is a vital heritage and tourist destination for the City of Clarence, and it is important that the heritage significance of the area is conserved,” he said. “We’re obligated by law to enforce the planning scheme, we can’t pick and choose how and when to do it, and it is there to protect this important historical precinct for future generations.” ............................... Alderman Luke Emunds, who moved a motion at a council meeting in March to waive discretionary fees for the application and instead charge the regular price, said the latest developments were concerning. ............................... “This could have been avoided had the council passed my motion, which would have satisfied all parties,” he said. “Instead, this saga continues to drag on.” ............................... Mr Nelson said he hoped the latest developments would lead to an “amicable resolution”.

CAN DILETTANTISM AND PHILISTINES DELIVER THE GOODS IN LAUNCESTON ?

The Ratepayers' Association took the time and effort to make a submission to Council on this agenda item and listening to the cursory regard the item received around the table, the association's concerns and aspirations were summarily dismissed. The association's concern is to ensure that when Council seeks advice, it is 'expert advice' and those providing it should in fact be 'experts' – not sycophantic dilettantes.

Under the provisions of SECTION 65 of the Local Government Act 1993 (Tas) a general manager must ensure that any advice, information or recommendation 'given to the council or a council committee is given by a person who has the qualifications or experience necessary to give such advice, information or recommendation'. 

The PURPOSE of this provision is to protect ratepayers from flawed advice provided by sycophantic dilettantes and other conflicted advisers.

With this in mind, and in the cut and thrust of things, the age old contention to do with the 'value of culture' is ever likely pop up and expose every machination of purified ignorance, unadulterated philistinism and simple unenlightenment. There is no surprises at all when this is witnessed as self deemed expertise just doesn't cut it.

We do need to consider living in a city without a 'cultural landscape' and we need to do so very carefully.

The Australia Council for the Arts reports regularly on incomes in that 'euphemistic cultural sector' and their reporting shows that artists – cultural producers – earned a gross income in the order of $48K PA on average. That is well below the average income of $77K PA but above the poverty line of $22K – roughly the aged pension. So any notion that people in the 'cultural sector' are on easy street and can afford to give freely of their time, resources and expertise is little more than 'arrogant tosh' and can easy be put to one side. Clearly, when they are expected to give freely of their 'professional all' way too much is expected.    CLICK HERE FOR A REFERENCE ... AND FOR ANOTHER CLICK HERE

Typically, people in the cultural sector need to supplement their income from other jobs – sometime multiple jobs. For instance, the story of a 29-year-old being forced to take a full-time receptionist job to make ends meet and at the same time maintain their 'practice' is all too common. Its not because she is a 'bad artist', it is actually because of the 'state of the market' in the cultural sector, that is, 

• the very one that is populated with people that Council assumes has the wherewithal to donate their time, their resources and their expertise to bureaucrats who are in receipt of exceptional salaries in order that the GM can satisfy SECTION 65 of the Act.

Cr. Dawkins when speaking to the agenda item lauded the initiative albeit basically dismissing the concept that 'sport' might in reality be a component of the city's 'cultural reality'. It is a contribution to the 'public discourse' that is worth listening to.

Cr. Dawkins even footnoted her comment by alerting people to the attention sport gets in the press and presumably she was making the point that sport gets enough. Also, somewhat curiously she  ignored:

• Aboriginal cultural cultural realities; and 
• The possibility of religion being a components; 

of the city's cultural reality. Likewise, she, and other speakers, totally ignored the ratepayers' submission and presumably because no 'real value' is attributed to it and the potential contribution every component, multi-dimensional components, of the city's current cultural realities.

However, C. McKenzie when he spoke to the motion was a little more elastic in what might be considered as a component of the city's cultural landscape. Interestingly he did so without naming any component maybe in case he made a mistake of some kind.

The fact that the ratepayers submission was advocating that 'committee members' drawn from the community be compensated for their time, expertise, experience and more still, is was not a concept they wish to consider. Setting a standard of that kind might be the thin edge of the wedge and ultimately unwelcome comparisons might get to be made. 

Having a 'cultural strategy' at all reeks of totalitarianism of the kind that came to be in Europe in the mid 20th Century. Assuming that 'culture' is mono-dimensional and/or that there is any such thing as a 'cultural oneness' runs counter to people's experience of their reality. Dumbing 'culture' down comes with all kinds of complexity and warnings and there should be no room whatsoever for dilettantism.

Manfred Rommel prominent German and influential municipal politician speaking of Adolf Hitler said "of course, Hitler was a dilettante, but he was a completely amoral person. Yes, he had no morals at all" In his words, these words, there is something to ponder upon even the 21st Century  – even in Launceston.

Dr Tandra Vale

MONEY LINK – http://tasratepayers.blogspot.com/2021/04/how-much-do-tasmanian-councils-spend-on.html

City of Launceston council ... The City of Launceston council has spent $2,743,946 on consultants in the past five financial years. It spent: In 2015-16: $484,051 In 2016-17: $496,813 In 2017-18: $768,316 In 2018-19: $315,066 In 2019-20: $679,700 The information was released at the council's March 11 meeting after The Examiner had asked repeatedly for the information.  ............................ The council's chief executive officer Michael Stretton said it developed the consultancy register due to increasing public interest.  ............................ "The council has decided to report the consultancy register to the public in the interests of achieving greater transparency and clarity in respect to the level of expenditure on consultants each year," he said. ............................ "The register identified that the council spent between 0.28 per cent and 0.71 per cent of its total annual expenditure on consultancies in the last five years."

THE PATERSON STREET CARPARK WEST ISSUE

 

ABC News posted on 4 Nov 2020 that the “Foundry school at centre of $90M Launceston Creative precinct evicted for unpaid rent”.

Information obtained by ABC shows Foundry is $83,614 behind on its rental payments for its Cameron Street facility – and has not made any payments for more than seven months.

• Foundry director Chris Billing also sole director of Creative Property Holdings, the company behind the precinct. The project also includes a bus exchange.

• Earlier this year the ABC REVEALED Foundry staff had not paid staff, and had not properly paid superannuation for several years….”

•  Foundry no longer operates from staffed premises in Launceston. 

Question – Caveat ? 

In February 2021, a caveat was placed on the Title to 41-43 Paterson Street Launceston (Paterson Central Carpark, owned by Car Parks Super Pty Ltd) by solicitors for Creative Property Holdings Pty Ltd. The placement of this caveat, was not notified to Carparks Super Pty Ltd; and the caveat remains “unregistered” according to Tasmanian Lands Titles Office, because of an ‘administrative matter’, meaning it presently has no jurisdiction in dealings concerning the Title (vol. 147031 fol. 1). 

Question – Legal battle ? – No Contract ! 

There is dispute as to whether the parties actually entered into a contract. Tasmanian law prescribes that all agreements for the sale of real estate (vacant land or developed land) must be in writing and signed by all parties. None of this happened. 

There is no agreement in writing signed by all parties. No contract was exchanged. No contract was settled. 

On 19 February 2021 solicitors for Creative Property Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 637 144 542 as trustee for the Creative Property Holdings Unit Trust (Sole Director Christopher Billing and Applicant) filed a Statement of Claim in the Federal Court of Australia. 

First Respondent, Carparks Super Pty Ltd ACN 607 566 094 as trustee for the Allen Family Superannuation Fund (owner of the property); And Second Respondent City of Launceston Council. 

The Applicant claims that on 20 November 2020, the First Respondent offered to sell the property to the Applicant. It has been revealed that the City of Launceston Council had apparently agreed to be guarantor for Creative Property Holdings Pty Ltd to purchase the property, and had advanced a significant sum as a deposit for Creative Property Holdings Pty Ltd. Solicitors for Council withdrew from the contract and ceased to be guarantor, demanding the return of the deposit it had advanced. 

The legal proceeding is being vigorously defended by solicitors for Carparks Super Pty Ltd. 

Minister Fergusson says the State is not party to this contract, but Question – Where is the money coming from so far ? 

City of Launceston Council controversially sought $10M from the Commonwealth’s Drought Relief Fund. 

Tasmanian Government has advanced $6M to City of Launceston Council on an interest free basis, and then apparently a further $6M on the same basis, all to be forwarded on by CoL Council to the developer (Chris Billing’s Creative Property Holdings Pty Ltd) to purchase the Paterson Street Central Carpark property. 

The development site includes the former 2 Birchall’s retail properties fronting Brisbane Street Mall, currently owned by CoL Council. 

Question – So what has been the involvement of State Government, and why is City of Launceston Council actively working to prejudice the proper rights of Carparks Super Pty Ltd to conduct its much-valued car park business at 41-43 Paterson Street ? 

Minister Fergusson says through the office of the State Co-ordinator-General [John Perry] The State “has been engaging with Launceston City Council, Creative Property Holdings and their financiers in relation to the Creative Precinct Proposal, including a planned bus terminal”. Interestingly, State Co-ordinator General John Perry has not engaged with the owners of the carpark property, Carparks Super Pty Ltd., but seems to have been a pivotal party in all other regards.(Interestingly, Metro, for whom the proposed bus interchange is to benefit, is a Government Business Enterprise, albeit independent and able to act independently). 

There is no responsibility by the CoL Council to provide or expend ratepayers funds on providing bus facilities for a State Government Business Enterprise. 

Initially, The SC-G proposed that the State be a partner in the development proposal, however in due course, the Government decided not to be directly involved Once this information was conveyed to CoL Council, the SC-G then apparently acted to approach a Sydney-based financier, BrickTop to finance the development for Chris Billing’s “group”, who was at that point yet to form Creative Property Holdings Pty Ltd. 

The Creative Precinct proposal has been publicly-stated to be estimated at $90M, a very large sum to be borrowed for a Launceston development. For a $90M development to prosper, a current property investment return of around 6% (rent $5.4M) is a big ask in Launceston when the vacancy level in the Central Area is already very high.

Almost 2 years ago now, City of Launceston Council purchased the Birchall’s retail properties for $8.8M. The shops remain boarded up although occupying a prime Mall frontage and next door to Myer. 

Council’s Expression of Interest process has spectacularly failed, and NOTHING has been forthcoming. 

Launceston ratepayers are funding this expense, notwithstanding the significant loss of rates income previously received from this valuable retail property. 

There is no evidence that the relocation of buses from St John Street to off-street in Paterson Street, will have any advantage for the rescue of the financial viability of the City, or that the loss of the present car park will not be detrimental.

CAR PARK EXPENDITURE ... What is it up to now?

It is said that already $1Million has already been spent and there is some speculation that overall it could be $2Million. Who knows?

Apparently the Councillors  do not know. 

WHO DOES KNOW?

Whatever  has been spent thus far is RATEPAYERS MONEY and ratepayers should be able to find out what is being spent in their name.

Interesting consideration regarding Town Hall money management ... For every $1Million lost, overspent, spent without an outcome, is roughly THREE YEARS SALARY for the GM or known at Town Hall the the CEO. 

Ratepayers need to be concerned! 

 

Why is Council Pushing a $90 Million Carpark Development NOW?

 

DEVELOPMENT?

An artist's impression of the Launceston Creative Precinct.

Site still not secured for $90m Creative Precinct, more than 10 months after it was announced 

Isobel Cootes

The old Birchall car park has not been purchased more than 10 months after the $90 million Launceston Creative Precinct was announced for the site, with a legal battle still ongoing to secure it. .................................. A caveat [Why & what for?] was placed on the property in February due to a legal battle underway between the two companies, with developer Creative Holdings yet to strike a deal with Car Parks Super, the owner of the old Birchalls car park at 41-43 Paterson Street. [Is the City of Launceston involved? If so how?].................................. The City of Launceston council is attached [How and why?] to the creative precinct via its proposal to relocate the St John Street bus interchange, and to redevelop the Birchalls building, which it purchased last year for $8.8 million. [Why was it purchase and for what purpose?] .................................. The council could compulsory acquire the site but mayor Albert van Zetten did not answer if it would or had plans to. [When will he or Council tell ratepayers what and why here?].................................. "Acquisition of the property is ongoing through a legal process. The council is currently awaiting the outcome of this process," he said. [What process and who are the parties involved] .................................. "The council has legal agreements with this company [Which company?] to facilitate the construction of a bus interchange on the site, post-acquisition." [What is holding this up? Is it being held up?]  .................................. The bus interchange must be completed by the end of 2022 as a condition of the council receiving a $10 million drought grant under the Building Better Regions Fund. [Is this a realistic expectation?] The council also received a $6 million no interest loan from the state government for the project. .................................. The state government could also compulsory acquire the site but State Growth Minister Michael Ferguson did not answer if it would intervene. [Why would the State Govt get involved?] .................................. "The government is currently in caretaker mode and understands the property remains subject to a contract for sale between Car Parks Super and Creative Property Holdings. The state is not a party to this contract," he said. [When was any of this deliberated upon in open council? Are the 'workshops' council holds behind closed doors either legal or ethical?] .................................. "Through the Office of the Coordinator-General we have continued to engage with the Launceston city council, Creative Property Holdings and their financiers in relation to the Creative Precinct proposal, including a planned bus terminal. "We remain enthusiastic of the potential of the proposal to transform Launceston and Northern Tasmania." [Why is this land actually needed for a bus interchange given the range of design and planning alternatives available?]

FOR CLARITY: 

The land being discussed here is NOT Birchalls Carpark and it is NOT a component of the acquisition of Birchalls property. 

It is in fact the "Parterson Central Car Park" and it has been known as that for 20 years.

APRIL 28 WHAT IS HOPED FOR POST STATE ELECTION

City of Launceston council

The new governance structure and $209m redevelopment of University of Tasmania Stadium [Can Launceston ratepayers ACTUALLY afford this and is it on their priority list?] heads the City of Launceston council's funding priorities, alongside a $2.5m upgrade of the Princess Theatre, $1m in new drainage and lighting for the Birch Avenue soccer ground, $3m for CBD traffic flow improvements and $3.1m upgrades to the NTCA Ground. [Where is the bus interchange needed and who asked the community and when?]

Launceston acting mayor Danny Gibson said the council had a clear line of sight over which projects it believed were key for the community for some time. [REALLY?]

"This council's priority projects will realise genuine benefits to a large number of people in our community - from sporting clubs, those in our arts and cultural sectors and motorists who frequent the CBD," he said. [REALLY?]

"And if they are picked up by the parties during this election campaign, they will also help boost our local economy significantly, not just in the short term but over coming years as well." [REALLY?]

Tandra Vale April 29

KEEP PLANNING LOCAL

Dear candidates, 

I am writing to you on behalf of Heritage Protection Society (Tasmania) Incorporated [HPST] to ask you to defend the rights of Tasmanians to have a say in their Tasmanian planning system. 

For the reasons outlined below, we are asking you to respond to us to commit to keeping planning within Local Councils, commit to allowing the current implementation of the Tasmanian Planning Scheme to run its course and commit to maintaining a robust planning appeals tribunal, and in particular, to refuse the proposal for security for cost orders. 

1. Commit to keep Planning within Local Councils HPST agrees with the 60+ organisations that comprises Planning Matters Tasmania, that a fundamental but unstated intention of the Liberal Government’s planning changes is likely to be to remove planning from local councils with more centralised control and less local community voices. 

This issue is as big, if not even bigger, than amalgamation. We want to keep planning local. - Commit to keeping planning within local councils – keep planning local. 

There may be problems with how councils make planning decisions but these can and are being addressed without resorting to such a dramatic and undemocratic change. 

Councils can represent their ratepayers and their community voices; they have local knowledge, understand local character and infrastructure needs. 

A planning panel in Launceston or Hobart may not make the best planning decisions about the northwest coast for example. 

 2. Commit to allowing the current implementation of the Tasmanian Planning Scheme (TPS) to run its course HPST understands that the Land Use Planning and Approvals Amendment (Tasmanian Planning Scheme Modification) Bill 2020 allows for the fast tracking of the implementation of some components of the TPS putting the places that you love at risk. 

This Bill is likely to be debated in the first Parliamentary session after the state election. Please reject/amend this Bill for the following reasons: 

• The Gutwein Government looks to be fast tracking components of each Council’s Local Provisions Schedule (LPS), the critical final step in the implementation of the TPS. This would result in less community input on local character and greater ministerial power. The current process should be allowed to run its course. 

•  A new process will also circumvent public input on substantial modifications of a draft LPS. Proponents of developments like Cambria Green could use this process to obtain new zoning to allow for their development without any community input. 

• These changes sadly represent a broken promise made by Peter Gutwein who committed to giving the community a real say in protecting local character through the LPS process. 

• These changes will also make the planning system more complex, confusing and uncertain resulting in poorer planning outcomes for the community and developers. 

3. Commit to maintaining a robust planning appeals tribunal.  Do you know that the Draft Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Amendments Bill will threaten your rights to appeal developments (or appeal planning decisions/approvals) undermining our democracy?

This Bill is likely to be debated in the first Parliamentary session after the state election. Please reject/amend this Bill for the following reasons: 

• Please oppose the Gutwein Governments proposed changes to the planning appeals process, in particular, to refuse the proposal for security for cost orders. This is nothing more than applying a gag to ordinary citizens and community groups and will make it prohibitively expensive for the average person or community group to appeal developments. 

•  Please commit to a robust planning appeals tribunal, which is fundamental to a healthy democracy – appeal rights ensure that the community has a say over its future. Ensure that a proper compulsory mediation system is implemented before a matter is referred to a Full Hearing so as to better ensure that affordable and fair outcomes occur. 

Together with the new Major Projects planning assessment process, the above proposed changes will fundamentally undermine community engagement in the planning system; impact our quality of life, our heritage, natural environment, and democracy. 

Tasmania already has Major Projects legislation that has NEVER been utilised, and so why is there now any justification to create it all over again. Too much is being concealed behind a phoney justification for the State to make concessions with fast tracking of projects and approvals because of promoted excuses that the Coronavirus “crises” has justified this. 

We see no evidence that there is any justification to give up our democratic rights as a community or to hand more exclusive powers over to megalomaniac ministers. 

Thank you for considering this request and we look forward to your reply. 

Yours sincerely, 

Lionel Morrell 

President of Heritage Protection Society ((Tasmania) Incorporated 41 High Street East Launceston Tasmania, 7250, Australia 

This email was sent by Lionel Morrell as President of Heritage Protection Society (Tasmania) Incorporated   email address (li82303@bigpond.net.au) 

How much do Tasmanian councils spend on consultants?

 How much do Tasmanian councils spend on consultants?  .... Isobel Cootes 

RTI: The expenditure of Northern councils in Tasmania on consultants. Northern Tasmanian councils have spent more than $9.1 million on consultants in the past five financial years. Consultants are used by councils to: 

• complete work when they do not have the expertise on staff,;
• do not have the required resource capacity; or 
• where a level of independence is required for a particular service;
• such as an assessment of development applications lodged by the council itself. 

The Examiner used Right to Information requests to find out what each council was spending on consultants and on what. 

Northern Midlands Council  ............................ The Northern Midlands Council spent the most, with a total of $3,405,266 on consultants from 2016 to 2020.  ............................ Two Right to Information requests were lodged after the first did not break down the information into each financial year. ............................ It did provide the number of consultants used in the past five financial years, at 19 consultants. I........................... The second RTI, asking for clarification on the financial years, the financial year costs and a break down of the costs, was refused by the council. ............................ The reason given for the refusal by the council's corporate services manager Maree Bricknell was it would "substantially" and "unreasonably" divert council resources from other important work. ........................... However, its annual reports each year said it spent:  In 2016: $722,916 In 2017: $666,222 In 2018: $578,219 In 2019: $638,587 In 2020: $799,282 

City of Launceston council ... The City of Launceston council has spent $2,743,946 on consultants in the past five financial years. It spent: In 2015-16: $484,051 In 2016-17: $496,813 In 2017-18: $768,316 In 2018-19: $315,066 In 2019-20: $679,700 The information was released at the council's March 11 meeting after The Examiner had asked repeatedly for the information.  ............................ The council's chief executive officer Michael Stretton said it developed the consultancy register due to increasing public interest.  ............................ "The council has decided to report the consultancy register to the public in the interests of achieving greater transparency and clarity in respect to the level of expenditure on consultants each year," he said. ............................ "The register identified that the council spent between 0.28 per cent and 0.71 per cent of its total annual expenditure on consultancies in the last five years."

Break O'Day Council............................The Break O'Day Council has spent $1,020,237 on consultants in the past five financial years. Its expenditure on external consultants has reduced over the period, with its highest expenditure on planning consultants at $356,953. ............................ Another big expenditure was the cost of engineers at $142,553 to undertake specialist work including monitoring and inspecting road and bridge infrastructure and modelling for specific projects. ............................ It spent: In 2015-16: $235,151 In 2016-17: $298,326 In 2017-18: $182,484 In 2018-19: $129,091 In 2019-20: $175,185 ............................A council spokesperson said the expenditure was due to undertaking projects related to infrastructure, ranging from roads to building the municipality's mountain bike trail network. ............................ They said tourism and community engagement also led to external help............................. "We deliver these projects to a high standard and do not always have the in-house expertise or manpower available to enable delivery within the expected timeframes, hence the reason external engagement of resources is required," the spokesperson said............................. "Council has seen a huge increase in development applications received in recent years and due to our location does struggle to recruit suitably qualified staff to meet the demand and [in] particular dealing with peaks and troughs in demand."  

George Town Council .....The George Town Council has spent $537,520.13 on consultants in the past five financial years.  ............................ The majority of costs occurred due to recruitment, engineering inspections, reports and strategies for the municipality.  ............................ It spent: In 2015-16: $55,035.04 In 2016-17: $98,296.30 In 2017-18: $103,232.45 In 2018-19: $90,690.61 In 2019-20: $190,265.73 

Flinders Council... Flinders Council has spent $401,260.99 on consultants in the past five financial years............................. The majority of funds were spent on plans and reports for the Flinders Island Airport, the municipality's planning scheme, waste management, flooding reports and other reviews. ............................ A council spokesperson said all of the expenditure was due to not having the expertise needed at the council. ............................ It spent: In 2015-16: $68,527,32 In 2016-17: $103,148.14 In 2017-18: $89,250.51 In 2018-19: $129,695.25 In 2019-20: $10,639.77  

Meander Valley Council ... The Meander Valley Council spent $380,771.04 on consultants in the past five financial years. ............................ The majority of costs occurred due to plans, valuations, reports/studies, zoning and strategies for the municipality. ............................ It spent: In 2015-16: $67,438.09 In 2016-17: $70,647 In 2017-18: $72,951.58 In 2018-19: $95,487.39 In 2019-20: $74,276.98 

West Tamar Council ...The West Tamar Council spent $243,097.18 on consultants in the past five financial years............................. Over the period it used 18 consultants, with the majority of costs associated with the Beauty Point Foreshore Project, planning, reviews of structure plans, landslide reports and energy consumption reductions. ...............It spent: In 2015-16: $34,300 In 2016-17: $27,790 In 2017-18: $30,531.15 In 2018-19: $123,944.03 In 2019-20: $26,532 

Dorset Council .... The Dorset Council spent $285,862.53 on consultants in the past five financial years. Isobel CootesIsobel Cootes ............................ The council's corporate service director John Marik said the large increase in 2017-18 was due to a municipal road condition assessment and revaluation conducted every five years............................. He said the council was extremely cost conscious and until COVID-19 had consistently run an adjusted underlying surplus, on average, of $1.94 million.  ............................ "For a small council that type of result is unheard of within Tasmanian councils, and likely within councils nationally," he said. ............................ "Part of this is ensuring council maximises inhouse knowledge and very sporadically utilises consultants only where there are gaps in council knowledge."  ............................ It spent: In 2015-16: $50,189.27 In 2016-17: $35,710 In 2017/18: $131,942.70 In 2018-19: $28,471.70 In 2019-20: $39,548.85 

Glamorgan Spring Bay ... Council The Glamorgan Spring Bay Council has spent $82,713.83 on consultants in the past five financial years. ............................ The majority of funding went towards planning, engineering reports, design work and field assessments. I ............................ It spent: In 2015-16: $37,513.68 In 2016-17: $1072.73 In 2017-18: $1750 In 2018-19: $500 In 2019-20: $31,378.82

Local Government will be a bone of contention in Windermere

 

Windermere's Legislative Council seat vacated by resigning MLC Ivan Dean has become a five-horse race. ..................................... City of Launceston councillor Rob Soward has announced he will contest the Legislative Council election as an Independent. Mr Soward has studied and worked in the Windermere electorate for many years and has been an elected member of the Launceston council for the past 11.5 consecutive years. ..................................... Four of those years he spent as deputy mayor. Mr Soward said he had chosen to run because he believed the Legislative Council played a vital role in holding the state government accountable by advocating for his constituents. .....................................  "The Legislative Council has the opportunity to break the stalemate between the two major parties in the lower house," he said. ..................................... "Its role as a house of review is crucially important, but there is that opportunity to direct the government of the day to take action." ..................................... He pointed to Independent Mersey MLC Mike Gaffney's recent success, who recently successfully lobbied to get Tasmania's voluntary assisted dying legislation to pass both levels of Parliament. ..................................... Mr Soward said he would campaign on jobs, health, education, and housing as part of his election campaign. ..................................... He said he would lobby the government to bring more jobs to the Windermere electorate, particularly in George Town and Launceston's Northern Suburbs, including Rocherlea, Waverley and Ravenswood. ..................................... "Take hydrogen for example, both sides of government are supportive of hydrogen projects but I haven't seen one single job created." ..................................... Mr Soward said he'd lobby to encourage businesses to invest in those regions to increase the number of well-paid jobs. ..................................... There are now three Independent candidates for Windermere's seat, the election of which will be held on May 1, the same day as the lower house state election. ..................................... Will Smith, of JCP Empowering Youth, was endorsed by the retiring member Ivan Dean as his preferred candidate. ..................................... Mr Soward joins already declared Independent candidate Vivienne Gale, who announced her candidacy in February. ..................................... The Liberal Party has endorsed former television identity Nick Duigan as their candidate, and Labor has endorsed former Bass MHR Geoff Lyons as their candidate. ..................................... Mr Soward said he'd decided to run about a week ago after being encouraged by council constituents. ..................................... He said he truly believed in the Upper House's independence, which was why he'd decided to stand unaffiliated to a party. ..................................... I am not afraid to take some flak and stand up for people, so I think that will hold me in good stead if I am elected as an MLC. ..................................... Mr Soward, who faced public criticism following a harassment complaint in 2017, said he believed the matter was resolved. ..................................... He said he was looking towards the future and his campaign. ..................................... A magistrate, who chose to not convict Mr Soward over the incident following a guilty plea, said "he was a man of good character". ..................................... Other election priorities include improving the electorate's health outcomes, easing the social housing and rental crises, and improving access to quality courses for young people.

FOOTNOTE: Launceston's ratepayers with long memories will recall that Cr Soward was once the President of the Ratepayers Association. Its not anything that he has talked about recently.

Likewise the ratepayers living in Rocherlea, Waverley and Ravenswood. who go out to vote in Council elections will know what Cr Soward has done for them but he might need to remind some in his campaign and door knocking.

In races like this one, when candidates go knocking on doors they will discover where their support base is, the gender mix,  the income demographic and what is front of mind in the constituency they assume that they have. 

Polling day will no doubt be a time for reality checking and other assessments.

In Cr  Soward's tenure on council there has been quite a bit going on in northern Tasmania and one way or another. Significantly despite the property boom the regions economic reality has taken a hit and the extent of it remains an unknown.

Of concern to ratepayers will be the council's deficit position and the looming prospect of rate increases.

This election is a time when ratepayers need to be quizzing all candidates about where they stand in regard to reforming local government given that the current Act is long pst its use-by-date.

MEDIA RELEASE ... PLANNING MATTERS

You can also download the media release pdf version here.

An Interim Planning Directive unilaterally imposed by Planning Minister Roger Jaensch without any consultation with the community, Councils and professional planners, will radically change planning standards with regards to residential developments.  This will impact the liveability of our cities, towns and suburbs and undermine the promised roll out of the state-wide planning scheme.

On 10^th February 2021, Minister Jaensch issued Interim Planning Directive No. 4 – Exemptions, Application Requirements, Special Provisions and Zone Provisions, a directive that comes into effect today, blindsiding professional planners, councils and community advocates for better planning in Tasmania.
 
“Peter Gutwein, as the Minister who bought in the state-wide scheme, always lead us to believe that we would be able to protect local character through each Council’s Local Provisions Schedules but this directive undermines that commitment by circumventing the local process”, said Sophie Underwood, spokesperson for Planning Matters Alliance Tasmania (PMAT).
 
The planning directive also affects local residential standards including:

• No maximum limit on impervious surfaces (concrete or roof space) leading to increased potential flooding issues and hotter living environments;
• No requirement for sunlight into habitable rooms or gardens;
• Bigger sheds allowed with no permit required; and
• Removal of rear boundary setbacks impacting privacy and shadowing.

“We’ve always said planning scheme changes will lead to a loss of local character and an increase in conflict amongst neighbours but this directive will accentuate these issues and take them to another level.

 “Land use planning rules govern how our communities look and how we interact and they need review and strengthening. Instead they are being weakened by unilateral government decisions that weaken protections and do not meet community expectations.

“As Tasmania’s post COVID appeal leads to population growth and massive pressure on coastlines and peri-urban areas we should be taking steps to protect the things that make Tasmania special. This directive does the exact opposite.

“This directive circumvents the Local Provision Schedule process, where local councils work with the community to establish planning rules to protect natural and cultural values and local character. While that process was promised as a means to involve community and protect local values, it appears to have been abandoned by government.

For Comment
Anne Harrison - State President - PMAT - 0419585291
Sophie Underwood - State Coordinator - PMAT - 0407501999

PMAT was awarded the 2020 Planning Champion prize at the national Planning Institute of Australia awards. This national award recognises non-planners for their advocacy or for making a significant contribution and lasting presence to the urban and regional environment.

You can also download the media release pdf version here. 
 

Kind regards,
Sophie

Sophie Underwood
PMAT State Coordinator
www.planningmatterstas.org.au/donate
sophie_underwood@hotmail.com

LAUNCESTON'S COUNCIL AND COUNCILLORS ALLERGIC TO CONSULTATION PROCESSES

Launceston's mayor believes the remaining eight Tasmanian tiger statues in the Brisbane Street Mall are safe if you look where you are going. ................................... Earlier this month two of the thylacine statues, which caused the most community concern, were removed and placed into storage until a new placement plan was developed for all 10 statues. ................................... Coffee Republic owner Robin Smith raised concerns about the remaining eight statues at the last City of Launceston council meeting. He asked if the council considered them to be safe. ................................... "My observation, having worked in the mall for 20 years now, [is] people don't seem to have trouble with anything that's standard height," he said. ................................... "Certainly the Thylacines that remain in the mall today are also too low to be considered safe." ................................... Mayor Albert van Zetten said he believed the remaining statues were safe. ................................... "I think the ones there are safe if you look where you're going," he said. ................................... A risk assessment of the bronzed statues to foot traffic was undertaken by the council, after a number of people had fallen or tripped over them. ................................... The review was first announced in April 2020 and took more than eight months to be finalised. ................................... Mr Smith also asked why all of the plans from the 2015 concept for the mall upgrade were not implemented. ................................... The council's chief executive Michael Stretton said there was extensive consultation with mall retailers during installation that saw changes to those plans. ................................... "Not all elements of the mall, as it was constructed was entirely with what the initial approved plan was," he said. ................................... "The best balance in terms of trying to meet the needs of retailers versus the approved plan was what was sought." .... https://www.examiner.com.au/story/7125738/remaining-tiger-statues-are-safe-if-you-look-where-you-are-going-mayor/get-your-daily-morning-wrap-from-the-examiner/

IS THIS ABLEISM OR IS IT SIMPLY DISCONNECTIVISM AT WORK?

 From: JotForm <noreply@jotform.com>

Date: 14 February 2021 at 5:53:52 pm AEDT

Subject: We have received your response for Letters to the editor

Reply-To: gstone@austcommunitymedia.com.au

TEXT FIXED ..... The community has been short changed in relation to the design features and facilities promised/expected for the Mall.................. The scant consultation undertaken made it very clear that the community wanted a lush shady and aesthetically-pleasing environment, and this would attract people to the place and provide a welcoming environment for shoppers and visitors to the central area. However, Council managers employed Adelaide-based consultants with pre-conceived ideas about design, and the result we have is what you get. ................... The management operates under the radar of Councillors who in the end have to just "suck it up" and either expose themselves of claims of interfering in day-to-day management affairs, or keep their mouths shut. ................. Electors expected their representatives to speak up....to represent them....but no, after all "snouts in troughs" is a very comfortable place to exist. Yum! 

 Lionel Morrell President, Tasmanian Ratepayers Association Inc.

NOT PUBLISHED YET

WHAT IS AT WORK HERE?

WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAUNCESTON?