THE GORGE HOTEL DEBACLE

CLICK HERE TO GO TO WIN NEWS ON FACEBOOK

Don Defenderfer’s letter in The Examiner is a reminder of just what is at stake when we ‘develop something’. Usually something is given up, sometimes something is won and oftentimes a great deal is overlooked. 

The decision by Council to allow, notionally allow, a grand scheme to proceed towards some kind resolution in the fullness of time says more about ‘civic power’ than it ever might about a hotel with tourism potential.

Don Defenderfer’s concerns, thinking about amenity, prettiness, and what is thought to belong to a citizenry, rings true. Yet somehow the issues are more expansive, more extensive, than aesthetics and public amenity.

When the penny actually drops it’ll be realised that $50Million might well turn into ‘unknown gazillions’ and then something might give.

When someone gets down to doing the geophysics, dealing with eco-sustainability, confronting the risks of environmental change, researching the technologies, the projected outcome might yet change.

Don Defenderfer might be right, skyscrapers may find their placedness elsewhere and that might even be realized, albeit‘a bit later on’. 

On the evidence, what is actually on paper might never be built, or even be buildable. So much for civic authority. Curiously, Cr. Soward somewhat outrageously drew a connection between this proposal and Sydney's Opera House. If only he had done some research before exposing his foolish metaphor.

The winning 'design proposal' for the Opera House is not what sits on Bennelong Point as it was 'unbuildable'. The point here is that 'excellence in design' rests upon much, much more than visual aesthetics. Aesthetics are not insignificant but there is more to consider. At the time in Sydney there even proponents for a 'big box' on the site – a cheaper alternative. So let's be careful about metaphors distant in time – and from a different geographically.

No matter how hard they try, council bureaucrats cannot, and have not, realized 'excellence in design' in this instance in a 21st C context. Typically, given the subjectivity, 'functionaries' are hard pressed to divine and define, such a thing as design excellence under the umbrella of local governance in Tasmania. Not only are the people all so often ill equipped, the cultural paradigm within which they work mitigates against such subjective assessments. In so much as the criteria has not been articulated for them, nor is it an imperative, so what chance might they have?  

At the 'approval meeting' a broad spectrum of socio-political points of view exposed themselves with the subliminal imperative to approve quite evident. Some of this approaches being exotic. For instance, characterizing 'a hotel' as replacement for say a timber-mill after a 'deep soul search' is interesting and ideologically revealing. Then there is the rhetoric and extravagant  notions of 'money triggers', 'trickle downs' and 'economic boosts' to measure up for credibility.

All this, arguably, comes from the imperatives of aspirational fiscal wealth, not cultural sensibilities, not ecological sustainability, nor environmental sensibilities either. Without such things the decision making can only be one-dimensional. Likewise, all the things that make for inclusive 'placescaping and placemaking' gets to be left out in favour the anti-local imperatives, in favour of 'everywhereness'.

Excellence in design is won via attention to the full spectrum of issues. These things come up as 'the deciders' listen in to the information grabs that seek to change their already made up minds – way too late. 

Interestingly, elsewhere, the baseline for the approval of such a project would be that it did not impose upon the community's infrastructure. This is reported as requiring environmental sustainability for one thing.

Therefore, given the possibilities of current technologies, such projects need to be able to demonstrate that a given percentage of its own 'energy needs' will be generated. After that, it would need to 'manage' all its water needs and treatments on site – and there might well be other implications to do with the project's 'environmental footprint'. 

However, here and with this project, for whatever reason, none of this has had any overt consideration to speak of.

Given the outcomes and what has led to them thus far, it seems that it would be both appropriate and relevant to disband the in-house planning process and ideally forthwith. Having done so, independent, dispassionate arms-length, and free and fearless expert planning advice might more easily be found – entertainable even. If such an initiative were to be aimed at fulfilling the promise of locally oriented placescaping it is an strategy worth implementing.

Indeed, 'planning authority' might turn out to be what communities   could look to in 'placemaking'.                                           

Ray Norman

Launceston

.LETTERS TO THE EXAMINER

The Gorge Hotel .... Nobody seems to be raising the issue that everyone is talking about: the proposed Gorge Hotel development is way too tall for the intimate location it is planned for. Its approval would be a big mistake. ......... At 39 metres (nine storeys), it would be the tallest building in Launceston, far taller than the Grand Chancellor and the Mantra Charles which are both about 25-metres high. ........The Gorge Hotel would be totally inappropriate and out of character for the low-key streetscape that currently extends along Paterson Street. The Hotel would block the views north up the Tamar from residents in West Launceston and would also block the historic view of Launceston if one were to look down the Tamar from the north..........The area is already a bottleneck for Launceston College a nd TAFE traffic and with 145 rooms, a 500-person conference centre, a 200-seat bar and restaurant, functions rooms, spa and gym it would add an unacceptable level of traffic snarl for any locals heading to Trevallyn or into town. ....... Do we really want Launceston to look like everywhere else and lose its sense of place? Do we want a mini Gold Coast on historic Paterson Street? ..... The simple truth, this skyscraper does not belong in this part of Launceston and its name would degrade the beauty and serenity of the nearby Cataract Gorge. .......Don Defenderfer, Launceston.

Gorge Hotel IN support of the letters by Don Defenderfer and Bill Carney regarding the proposed Gorge Hotel (The Examiner, June 14). ............... The developer may make a motza but the city will lose part of its soul. I recall my experience at Darling Harbour last year when I attended a conference at the Maritime Museum. ............... I had not been there for about a decade and the change was dramatic and awful. ............... The place is now just visually overwhelmed by a wall of glass towers which have utterly destroyed the sense of the place. ............... The body of water is now secondary if that. I could not wait to get away from the place, the dump. Bunga Bungaroo I have termed it in dishonour of that Italian greaseball's idea of having a good time. ............... It's not the hotel per se but the optics of the tower. ............... At least the developer of the Grand Chancellor made an effort to sync its facade with the aesthetics of the surrounding buildings. ............... This proposed monstrosity is the product of a lack of imagination and the power of design graphics programs. ............... The latter can generate vast quantities of aesthetic junk very quickly and cheaply and are perfectly suited mainly to marketing. ............... Michael Seward, South Launceston. 

New hotel at the Gorge FIRSTLY may I say that I applaud what Errol Stewart and Joe Chromy have done in and around Launceston. ............... However, the new project from the latter does raise some concerns. ............... It appears that the final building will resemble a towering reflective cliff face but it's the traffic problems which are concerning. ............... Being on the corner of Margaret and Paterson Streets, when it is being built I can see absolute chaos. ............... Margaret Street is already a nightmare at different times of the day and Paterson Street is the only road to Trevallyn unless one drives down the West Tamar road and turns off there. As the council has had no idea how to solve the gridlock from Mowbray all the way down Wellington Street to Kings Meadows I guess they haven't had a thought in their heads regarding this large development and the traffic chaos it will cause. ............... It would be very interesting to hear what they intend to do but as it seems it's all too late for people to present a petition or raise more objections. ............... I guess it's a done deal like many other things we hear about after it's all done and dusted. Giving car parks and land to UTAS springs to mind. ................ Glennis Sleurink, Launceston.

Gorge Hotel approved by City of Launceston council

LETTER Gorge Hotel

IT'S a pity that neither the councillors or the press were in attendance at the meeting of representers protesting the Gorge Hotel development, at the Albert Hall on June 6. Thus, the system inexorably rolls onUnless the councillors, now before it is too late, comprehensively inform themselves of the real details and not just those fed to them by the bureaucrats and the developer's consultants; then the reason why Launceston's Gorge is such a unique destination will soon become a thing of the past.

Ken Partridge, West Launceston.

THE EXAMINER: Gorge Hotel approved by City of Launceston council Tarlia Jordan ...................  The Gorge Hotel approved, one councillor votes against ................... JAC Group's Gorge Hotel proposal on Margaret Street has been approved by the City of Launceston council. ................... Councillor Tim Walker was the only person to vote against the decision. ................... The public gallery was packed to the hilt, with a number of people speaking against the proposal, but also in support. ................... More than 25 people spoke about the item. Six people were for the development. ...................Those supporters included Launceston Chamber of Commerce's Neil Grose, JAC's planners, Josef Chromy, and Dean Cocker. Launceston Chamber of Commerce executive office Neil Grose said the development was a fantastic example of the faith in Launceston, and that it was "strongly supported" by the chamber. ................... Against the item were many residents, and representatives from Keep Your Hands Off Our Gorge. ................... Representors spoke about the item for nearly an hour, with the discussions taking nearly two hours all up. ................... Gorge Hotel created by six architects Councillors Janie Finlay, Rob Soward, and Tim Walker spoke for longer than their allowed time limits and were both granted time extensions. ................... Cr Soward likened the development to the Sydney Opera House for the benefits it could give the city. ................... Councillor Tim Walker, however, apologised to the residents because he believed their concerns would not be heard by his fellow councillors. ................... He challenged his other councillors to make a mockery of him for that statement. ................... Councillor Nick Daking said he doesn't see why height was such an issue in the city. ................... "I'd like to see height in the city ... what the JAC Group proposes shows restraint," he said. ................... Councillors Finlay, Soward, Danny Gibson, Alan Harris, Andrea Dawkins, Karina Stojansek, Jim Cox and Hugh McKenzie voted for the development. ................... Councillor Paul Spencer was not at the meeting due to being in hospital. ...................

___________________________________________

FROM THE MERCURY: Launceston councillors give planning approval to controversial 39 metre tall Gorge Hotel despite several objections 

The Gorge Hotel has been developed by Launceston businessman Josef Chromy’s JAC Group ................. CHRISTOPHER TESTA, Mercury ................. Chromy’s JAC Group in Launceston. Picture: CBG Architects  .................PLANNING approval has been granted for a 39 metre tall hotel near Cataract Gorge, with one councillor hopeful Paterson Street could become “Launceston’s answer to Salamanca in Hobart”. ................. The $50 million proposal from the JAC Group, founded by Launceston businessman Josef Chromy, attracted more than 30 objections — with at least one opponent having flagged an appeal at the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal. ................. However, only one Launceston councillor present at the meeting voted against the development, which includes a nine-storey, five-star hotel, a function centre capable of hosting more than 500 delegates, a day spa and a gym. ................. Some councillors, while supportive of the proposal, acknowledged it would cause problems for those living nearby and urged the developers to consider their neighbours during design and construction. ................. Among them was Cr Alan Harris, who said the hotel would one day become “a natural landmark in the city” and “help tourists find the Gorge”. ................. “I think that what we’ve seen developed in Paterson Street should become Launceston’s answer to Salamanca in Hobart and become a real tourist precinct,” he said. ................. Tim Walker, the only councillor to vote against the development, said it “sets dangerous new precedents and makes a mockery of our current planning scheme” and would “pave the way for future inappropriate developments”. ................. Josef Chromy’s JAC Group is behind the $50 million Paterson Street Gorge Hotel. Susie Cai, a neighbour who runs a restaurant on a nearby corner, said her family had to meet certain requirements in 2012 when applying to build a home above their shop, including ensuring there was an outdoor area with sunlight. ................. “Our family outdoor recreation area will not see sunlight for a good half a year,” she said. ................. But Cr Harris said it was “unfortunate that you have chosen to live in a mixed urban and business area”, where such a development was permitted. ................. Dean Cocker, managing director of the JAC Group, said about 200 people would be employed during construction, while about 200 direct and indirect jobs would be created once it is built. ................. Mr Cocker said the hotel would take two years to build, with the next six months to be spent on a detailed engineering design and a competitive tender to select a builder, although a full appeal process could delay the project up to six months. ................. “I would hope that the resounding vote in support by the council would give people pause for thought — the expert advice was unequivocal in supporting this on every level,” he said. ................. Lionel Morrell, of the Heritage Protection Society Tasmania, had flagged an appeal against the decision even before a vote was held. ................. “They couldn’t have selected a worse, or less stable, site for a 39-metre building in Launceston,” Mr Morrell said. ................. Ms Cai and Mr Morrell were among a series of objectors who voiced their opposition to the development at the meeting, citing concerns about sewerage, the building’s potential to obstruct views of the Tamar River and Cataract Gorge, and traffic. ................. Launceston Chamber of Commerce executive officer Neil Grose, however, said it “lifts the bar” in tourism development and design excellence. ................. Eleven of the 12 Launceston councillors were present for the vote, with Cr Paul Spencer absent.

HIGH RISE HOTELS? No there are better options!

With a little innovation there is often another way to do something. But you do have to look for it! Robert Morris-Nunn's proposal for the Derwent has quite a bit going for it.

While it might not exactly translate to the Kanamaluka/Tamar, it does demonstrate that there are innovators in Tasmania who can 'cut the mustard' plus 'move and shake on the world stage'.

Not being a pale shadow of Singapore, Bangkok, Dubai, etc. has a hell of a lot going for it. It is especially so if you are in the 'tourism business'. 

Launceston is heading that way economically and culturally and better can be done. Let's do it! NO, let's get it done!

First of all Launceston needs to get with the project and 'LOOK LOCAL' to differentiate or get swallowed up in banality and mediocrity. 

Why settle for second best when something else is out there? Why put up with the one-dimensional thinking when there are innovators out there waiting to be released from the chains of mediocrity?

WATCH THIS SPACE

FROM THE MERCURY: A DEVELOPMENT application for a floating hotel on the River Derwent will be lodged with the Hobart City Council in the coming week, says the architect leading the proposal for Hunter Developments. ……………… Best known for his giant ray design at Saffire Resort on the East Coast, Robert Morris-Nunn said the five-storey, ring-shaped floating hotel near the Hobart Regatta Grounds would be the first hotel of its kind anywhere in the world if it went ahead. ……………… It would become not only a tourist attraction and a viable alternative to high-rise hotel developments in Hobart, but its pioneering technology could give birth to a new industry in the state, he said. ……………… Its innovative processes could be adapted to build everything from a floating hub for cruise ships on the Derwent to critical infrastructure such as hospitals in low-lying nations subject to catastrophic sea-level rise. ……………… Architect Robert Morris-Nunn is hoping to submit a development application for a floating hotel at the Hobart Regatta Grounds. ……………… Mr Morris-Nunn said the consortium, in partnership with Waterborne Designs, hoped to submit its application within days, after a year-long passage through the Co-ordinator-General’s office. ……………… “The Co-ordinator-General has reviewed the project and given Crown consent to lodge a development application,” he said. ……………… The waterfront at the Regatta Grounds where a floating hotel is proposed to be built. ……………… Hobart Lord Mayor Anna Reynolds said she keenly awaited the project details. ……………… “I am looking forward to seeing the application and advice from planning staff on how the project fits into our planning laws,” Cr Reynolds said. ……………… “It’s certainly a very exciting concept and I welcome the focus on the Derwent River with the museum and gallery. ……………… “Mr Morris-Nunn has always brought really unique and high-quality designs forward in his projects and ideas for Hobart. ……………… “We want to be a city with buildings that have high quality and original designs that help to tell a story about Hobart.” ……………… Mr Morris-Nunn is one of the state’s best-known architects, with a host of award-winning designs to his name, including the Henry Jones Art House and Macq 01 hotels on Hunter St, and the floating Brooke Street Pier, where much of the technology for the new hotel was developed and refined. ……………… Mr Morris-Nunn said the proposed floating hotel and David Walsh’s plan for a hotel upriver at Mona would complement each other. “The fact they both directly relate to the river – one overhangs it and the other floats in it – means the beauty of the river can be enhanced for visitors and locals alike,” he said. ……………… Mr Morris-Nunn said that he was confident the floating hotel would secure international investors quickly. ……………… “We have in-principle investors behind us, but they need to know it is politically palatable,” he said. Interested parties included institutional investors and wealthy individuals looking to invest in Hobart for the first time. 

GORGE HOTEL PETITION

The advice published in The Examiner where the General Manager Michael Stretton states that the Petition cannot be received by Council at Thursday’s meeting because it was not published on the Agenda is not how the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2015 can be applied at Launceston Council Meeting on Thursday.

Mr Stretton does not take into account s8(6) of these Regulations, where it allows a matter to be discussed that is not on the agenda under certain circumstances.

In this instance, the petition was created to gauge the community’s reaction to the Planning officers recommendations regarding Council’s consideration of the Gorge Hotel DA. The recommendations were not made available until the Agenda was published, hence this creates special circumstances hence the GM has power to allow the petition to be considered and by a simple majority of Councillors, the petition can be received and considered.

I suggest you read the Regulations. I think I am correct and the GM is overlooking this provision of the Regulations.


Regards
Lionel Morrell
President, Tasmanian Ratepayers Association Inc
https://www.examiner.com.au/story/6212498/gorge-hotel-petition-unable-to-be-accepted-before-meeting/#slide=8

LAUNCESTON GM WRONG ON GORGE HOTEL PETITION

How divisive is this stance taken by the General Manager out and about in the press as he is? The point of this petition is to: 

• Make the elected representatives – here operating as planners –  aware that they are 251 plus thus far people who hold a particular set of views;

• Make the elected representatives aware of the issues they are concerned about; and 

• To do so as loudly as they can in order to attract attention to their stance and concerns.

For the most part they have done this it seems. It also seems that they have done so 'in spades' given the time available. 

The GM's talking the petitioners/representors/protestors down is not only divisive, his characterization of the petition's 'bureaucratic status' is at best irrelevant.

The notion that how this CHANGE.ORG –https://www.change.org/petitions – PETITION would work was never a mystery to those who signed it. If yoU use 'social media' you are well aware of how these things work.

As well, anyone connected to the world on 'social media' would know what impacts these petitions can have and have had. They have never worked 'bureaucraticaly', they are not intended to, but they have had some significant outcomes.

Examiner readers might also remember that the GM came out against the audacity of anti-Gorge Hotel representors moving a motion of no confidence in the City of Launceston's planning staff. For the GM to do this was both silly band inappropriate. 

Curiously, having it reported in the press added wait to the views of project's detractors. So, be it.

However, if the GM 'knew his onions' and was looking for an appropriate outcome he might be sending out a different message. Likewise, if the Mayor as the meeting's Chairperson was actually a community 'representative' he too might want handle this whole things a little differently.

So, Launceston has what Launceston has and when the shouting is over and the dust has settled, and it will, we will see what we have.

A petition against the proposed Gorge Hotel is not able to be submitted before the council makes a decision about the development. ............The petition raises concerns about the proposed hotel's height, visual effects and location............. It is being put forward by a neighbour of the site where the proposal is expected to be built in Patterson Street............. However, the City of Launceston council general manager Michael Stretton said the petition could not be accepted because the agenda for Thursday's meeting had closed............. "[That] removes the ability to table a petition for consideration at the meeting," he said........... Gorge Hotel created by six architects The council will consider the development application at its meeting on Thursday. Mr Stretton said those for and against the proposal would have the opportunity to speak to the item............. "As the planning authority responsible for assessing the development application for the proposed hotel, the council is required to solely consider the planning merits of the application," Mr Stretton said............. "We appreciate there are a diversity of views on planning applications." How a building looks is not supposed to be considered when the council is acting as a planning authority............. The petition was started after a meeting between the council and the representors of the hotel.                 ............More than 251 signatures have already been received since the petition was started on Monday............. "In these two comparison cases used [in the development application], the proposed developments heights were only higher than one other building in their vicinities," the petition said............. "Whereas, this we believe does not compare to the Gorge development in which the height is twice that of the highest surrounding buildings and will stand to become the tallest building in the two-hundred-and-thirteen-year-old city." ............ Concerns about the height of the 39-metre proposal were raised because the surrounding building, Launceston College, is about 21 metres. The meeting will start at 1pm at the Town Hall............. Those speaking to the item will be given two minutes.

SHAMEFUL RUBBISH IN TODAY'S EXAMINER

Today’s Examiner is contained within a 36-page Special Feature “Highlighting the hardworking and successful businesses in our community and encourage all Northern Tasmanian’s to buy and support local businesses. 

What a terrible shame that the City of Launceston Council, apparently the biggest business in town, doesn’t share this pledge. In fact on the evidence the functionaries at Town Hall are doing everything possible to source materials, services, whatever 'elsewhere'?

Purchasing paving blocks from Western Australia over the apparently equal local product is just one of the recent notable examples of 'not buying local'. 

However, how would we know when the Tender Committee at Town HJall is operated in strict secrecy? It could be doing all kinds of deals behind closed doors with all kinds of people who live well away fro the Tasmanian 'grape vine'.

We do know that interstate consultants are favoured – Paul Davies Pty Ltd – over the clearly inferior locals. And there is much more, take garbage collection, for instance, the previous contractor, Jones & Co was a local. 

They do say that there is "money in muck" and its apparently so when 'interstaters' come banging on your door making deal that are hard to refuse.

Other lauded local big wheel developers also head interstate for professional expertise – UTas, JAC etc – and the locals go wanting and ratepayers cop it in the neck at budget time. 

Ponder why Launceston's rates are apparently on the cusp of going up 4plus% and speculated to go up 45% to 50% in the decade ahead.

This year the General Manager has apparently gifted a whole raft of people all kinds of things with almost $80K per week in the week in his 'Community Development & Marketing Account' aka 'The Slush Fund'.

We should all feel very sorry for those 31 businesses who bought a half page advertisement for the price of a full page in this 'Special Feature'. People are being ripped off everywhere you turn.

In actual fact the 'Special Feature' is just a piece of advertising junk specially destined for landfill. Also, when it goes to the 'Waste Management Centre' it actually will go the place where stuff, and opportunities, really do get to be waisted! 

Once-upon-a-time it might have been just so much wrapping paper, toilet paper even, but now it goes to landfill and the rates go up to manage the waste.

Does the editorial committee at The Examiner really fight for the local business? Hardly likely from an office is Sydney or somewhere. 

Actually, how does it go down locally with 'the local paper' supporting the 'big end of town' who are supporting adverse development plans that belong somewhere else? In all probability they are being funded somewhere else too.

One day the penny will drop ... perhaps.

Major Building Pojects And Design Excellence

If you read the Examiner an get the feeling that the decision making is done and dusted then you are excused.

If the Council is under fire it is because it appears as if the planners at Town Hall have been running on HUBRIS JUICE yet again. Whoever it is who is filling their tanks with this stuff is anybody's guess but it is unlikely that you'll need to leave Town Hall to tap them on the shoulder.

With General Managers having, and so very often exploiting, extraordinary and unusual executive powers under the Local Govt Act, detecting hubristic and preemptive 'authority' in the air doesn't require clairvoyance at any level – the trickle-down-effect  is measurable.

Reading The Examiner there is no hint of any giving way to community concerns let alone any hint of concern in regard to the layers of bureaucratic stuff-ups that preceded the 'representors' meeting'. However, that is up to 'the elected 12' if they are not nobbled.

Speculating upon what might be influencing the decision making before hand, on the day and potentially at the appeal if things go that far, would be a risky business. Then there is the spectre of declaring of 'design excellence' on the part of the dilettantes about town. Click here to read some press commentary on this.

When money is involved 'excellence' is typically assessed subjectively and the criteria is likewise elastic. Throw in a bit of 'executive power' and goodness knows what will win what on the day.

However, if say the General Manager under SECTION 65 is to "guarantee expertise" and by extension 'design excellence', too it now seems. Will he call on the Architect's Institute for help? Or will it it be some in-house panel ably assisted by some 'captain's picks' from the Chamber of Commerce, the museum and say a councillor or two with a 'design bent'? 

Indeed, in the criteria will such things as appropriate technology, ecological sustainability, energy self-sufficiency, water management, durability, fitness-for-purpose, place relevance, site specificity get any consideration or ranking? Of course the proponents will have their priorities and business expectations but large projects make enormous impacts upon placescaping and community wellbeing.

It's all a bit hard isn't it?

T.Alen

NB  At the time this post was made this site has had 87K plus readers

City of Launceston council has come under fire again by representors against the proposed Gorge Hotel, following a meeting between the two parties.

At the meeting on Thursday, more than half of the representors attended. The attendees had submitted representations against the hotel.

However, general manager Michael Stretton said the council routinely hosts representor meetings prior to a development application going before the councillors for a decision.

Ratepayer Ian Routley said after more than two-and-a-half hours, the representors moved a motion criticising the council's actions during the advertising period and expressed no confidence in the ability of the council to completely asses development applications.

However, the motion was not regarded as official, because it was not the forum for those types of issues, Mr Stretton said.

RELATED STORIES:

• Gorge Hotel application lodged with council
• Hotel readvertised after council miss title
• Gorge Hotel to be readvertised for third time after council mistake
• Gorge Hotel created by six architects

"They are not a forum for the passing of resolutions and or the making of decisions," he said.

"The council is not required to hold the meetings and only does so because we believe that they add value to the process from both an officer and a representor perspective."

Nearly 40 representations were received about the hotel proposal, with all of the representors who submitted invited to the meeting.

The development proposal has now been finalised for assessment, with the councillors set to discuss the application at its meeting on Thursday.

Of the representations, three were supportive of the development, and 35 raised concerns.

However, the development is recommended for approval by council staff.

In the meeting's agenda, the representors' concerns are outlined, with seismic risk, design, height, heritage, lack of community consultation and noise all listed.

The $50-million hotel would have 145 rooms, a 500-people conference centre, 200-seat bar and restaurant, function rooms, rooftop cocktail bar, day spa and a gym.

It is being put forward by Josef Chromy's JAC Group.

The council's development services director Leanne Hurst said in the agenda: "subject to the recommended conditions, the project complies with the planning scheme and is appropriate to be recommended for approval."

Councillors will vote on the proposal at a meeting on Thursday. It will be held at 1pm at the Town Hall.

MEDIA RELEASE GORGE HOTEL LAUNCESTON

6 June 2019

More than 20 members of the public attended a meeting convened by City of Launceston Council for representors at Launceston’s Albert Hall meeting room today.

These people had submitted formal representations to the City of Launceston Council in connection with a Development Application for a controversial 39.5M high hotel building fronting Paterson, Margaret and Brisbane Streets in Launceston.

After more than two hours of presenting their concerns to Council’s planning staff, a unanimous motion was carried. The motion states:  

1. Criticised Council’s actions in advertising and exhibiting the Development Application; and
2. Expressed no confidence in the ability of City of Launceston Council staff to competently assess the Development Application. 

The meeting noted with concern that representations made in relation to the application had already been advertised and re-advertised on three occasions

Furthermore, the meeting contested the Development Application given that it failed to comply with Council’s legislated processes.

Moreover, the meeting noted that the planning staff’s acknowledged failure to correctly notify adjoining property owners.

The meeting also called upon Council to have the Application assessed by an independent party.

Council staff present were asked to convey the feelings of the meeting to the General Manager and Councillors.

The Development Application is due to be considered by Council at its next meeting June 13.

For more information please contact Ian Routley 03 6331 9406

ACCOUNTABILITY AT LAUNCESTON'S COUNCIL

Ever since GRASS ROOTS [LINK] and YES MINISTER [LINK] appeared on our TV Screens our cynicism relative to representational government has been justified.

The scene being played out at Launceston's Town Hall to do with the city's 'tender process' brings those memories flooding back but this time it is real life and the questions are mostly to do with ratepayers' capacity to pay and the adequacy of our hip pocket.

Tender processes, because of the money involved, have been contentious forever. In  Queensland the goings on in and around a couple of their councils the State Govt. moved on Local Govt in an attempt to close down shonky dealings. Accountability and transparency is always the issue in the end and corrupt government put down the foundations Queenslanders grapple with still.

A Tasmanian Councillor, not from Launceston, in a conversation about the credibility of Local Govt remonstrated about how "really silly this accountability talk really is" which might tell us something about how misplaced our trust is when it is invested in Local Govt in Tasmania and when elected representatives are tested. Some do not deserve our trust.

On the evidence many/most/some of these people are simply along for the ride and the status/stipend/honorarium/money since nobody would pay them anything at all for the rest of their time. Why do people vote for them?

One Councillor in Launceston has described 'the money' as paltry and "about equivalent to a couple days a week's work" albeit that at the time nobody was willing to pay them anything at all for the rest of their days in the week. 
SEE https://www.tic.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/402523/Councillor-Allowances-Review-Issues-Paper-January-2018.pdf

That Cr Spencer was alarmed enough to move the motion suggests that he was seeing something to be alarmed about. What is it? What is holding him back from articulating more fulsomely his alarm?

Listening in on the internet, people have remarked that it is extraordinary that essentially the Councillors could not vote for the motion because they could not give the time necessary to the implied replacement process. However, this raises a whole lot of rather uncomfortable questions about this 'current process' and it's perceived failures. What are they?

Moreover, the General Manager, in the Agenda Papers, mounted the most vehement argument against the motion. Typically this would ring alarm bells but the Councillors, except for Cr. Spencer, were happy enough to let this move for greater accountability pass them by. 

Deputy Mayor, Cr Gibson, did move for an audit of the process but audits at Town Hall are rarely reported on, if ever. All too often these audits are 'internal affairs' that bring on thrashings with the proverbial 'wet lettuce leaf' at best.

If the Auditor General were to look at Launceston's tender processes carefully you would have to wonder about just what he was shown – what was on exhibit that week. Anyway this audit will probably be dragged out so as the world will have moved on to 'the next crisis' – and therefore unready to pay attention. 

Are you likely to be fleet of foot whilst under serious scrutiny and with time being the great healer?

As for the Mayor and Cr. McKenzie, with their account's hats on, not seeing any merit in this motion, or not having an alternative on the ready, tells us something perhaps. Dare we go into that?

Perhaps when Cr. Dawkins talks about "danger" she may have actually been concerned about being held accountable sometime in the future. Now that is both an extraordinary idea and an interesting thought bubble to be caught up in.

Cr. Finlay's 'nothing to see here' support for the same old, same old tells us just about everything in that she is not up for rocking the boat. In times past she would have been moving this and that to draw attention to herself and her aspirations no matter how quirky. Well same old, same old really.

And, Cr. Tim Walker who is well known for his 'greenish strategics' again walked both sides of the street to live on for another day in the operational good books – and putting nothing up as a stake.

All we can do when we say our prayers inn the evening is to ask for the sky to fall in on complacency. Someone said somewhere that good luck is when opportunity meets preparation, while bad luck is when lack of preparation meets reality. So, what do we pray for?

T. Alen

IN THE EXAMINER  Paul Spencer only one to vote to disband council's tender review committee Tarlia Jordan .......................... A move to disband the City of Launceston council's tender review committee by one of its councillors has been lost. .......................... The motion, put forward by Councillor Paul Spencer, was lost after he was the only person to vote for it at Thursday's council meeting. .......................... However, deputy mayor Danny Gibson moved an alternate motion for an audit of the committee that passed unanimously. It is understood there was a review of the committee scheduled for the end of last year. .......................... Councillor Tim Walker seconded the original motion for the purposes of having the discussion. .......................... The original motion asked for all tenders more than $10,000 to be brought to the council for a decision, rather than the panel. .......................... Councillor Jim Cox, who chairs the tender committee, said the committee was the third step in the tender process after the council calls for project tenders and tenders submitted, then it goes before a panel of council officers. .......................... Councillor Andrea Dawkins said disbanding the committee based on the experience around the table was "dangerous" because not all the councillors would be the council in the future. .......................... Councillors Hugh McKenzie and Cr Gibson, who have both sat on the committee previously, said they had seen continued improvement in how the process works. Councillor Janie Finlay said she also had confidence in the current tender process. .......................... Councillor Nick Daking and Cr Spencer also sit on the committee. .......................... All councillors spoke about the item, except Councillor Karina Stojansek. Councillor Rob Soward was not at the meeting.

Ratepayers Beware and Be Aware

Click here for more  information

Read this post on 'our ABC' and despair as this man tells it how HE thinks that it is. It is a worry if you imagine that there might be a future.

The QVMAG search goes opn

https://www.examiner.com.au/story/6191379/waves-v-still-missing-from-qvmag-after-nine-months/?cs=12

Launceston's Brett Whiteley drawing, Waves V, is still missing from the 

Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, more than nine months after 

City of Launceston council announced it could not find the 1976 art work.

QVMAG staff became concerned about the drawing's whereabouts last year after researchers inquired about the drawing and it could not be found.

The drawing was recorded as having entered the museum's collection when purchased 

in 1976 for $800, but there has been no further record of it since - and it has never been displayed.

The value of Waves V is unknown, however works of similar media, content and size have recently sold from anywhere between $20,000 and $30,000.

City of Launceston general manager Michael Stretton said there was no update on the information given in March, when he confirmed Waves V was missing from QVMAG's fine art store.

"...it might be in another store or at a different QVMAG property," Mr Stretton said.

"This is one of the reasons we are eager to undertake a comprehensive audit of the QVMAG's extensive collection," he said.

Council has allocated $250,000 in its proposed 2019-20 annual budget to start the auditing process.

"Collection audits require significant resourcing and time. Being mindful of these resource requirements, a structured plan, procurement process and framework will be implemented."

Tasmania Police confirmed it had not received a report from the council about the missing drawing.

"We've liaised with Tasmania Police on the missing work, but there has not been an investigation at this stage due to the QVMAG being unable to confirm with certainty that it is not on QVMAG premises," Mr Stretton said.