Well it may be Britain and there may be different sensibilities at work but there are still lessons to be learned about valuing places, the stories linked to them and the meaning/values invested in all that.
Saturday, November 29, 2014
PLACEscaping Launceston: Email from Mayor van Zetten
 |
| The Woolstore Building |
I respond as follows to queries raised -
Heritage assessment of the Woolstore Building
Council has commissioned a number of reports into the Heritage Value of the Woolstore buildings, and the site area more generally.
The initial report (specifically looking at the Woolstore and Silo building) was the Assessment of Heritage Value: Town Point, Inveresk report. Subsequently a, peer review assessment was completed by Goddon Mackay & Logan Heritage Consultants. This report accompanied the Assessment of Heritage Value: Town Point, Inveresk report, at the Council meeting of 5th May 2012 (item 15.1). As per usual practice the Council Agenda and attachments were available for download from the Council website - and are still available now for download, or viewing on the publically accessible computers in our Customer Service Area.
Extract from Agenda Item 15.1 North Bank Woolstores:
The General Manager requested a peer review be undertaken of the HVA to validate the findings of the report, and also consider the broader contextual issues associated with the site - primarily the impact of the flood levee realignment, and the viability of maintaining and protecting the heritage values of the buildings in the long term, given the reduced flood protection as a result of the levee works.
Godden Mackay Logan Heritage Consultants were engaged to prepare the Peer Review Report. In summary, the report notes:
· The HVS is thorough in its approach, although does not consider issues associated with the broader context of the site (including the impact of the flood levee realignment).
· Does not wholly concur that the remaining structures satisfy the number of assessment criteria for Heritage Listing noted in the HVA, and that the significance of the remaining structures may only satisfy 2 of the 7 criteria.
· Notes the low threshold for listing on the Tasmanian Heritage Register as only requiring one or more of the criteria to met for listing potential.
· Notes that retention and adaptation would be an appropriate outcome however, the impediments to long term protection and re-use of the structures may not be viable.
· Notes that the loss of the structures would be regrettable, but that other appropriate measures are available to achieve a satisfactory interpretation of the heritage values of the site as a valid alternative to building retention.
Given the lack of identified future uses for the part of the structure proposed for retention, it was recommended to Council to reconsider this element of the Masterplan proposal, and redirect the funding allocated to the Woolstore structure to the elements outlined in the recent report to Council.
Council's Consultation processes
Your Voice, Your Launceston was used as a consultation tool. It is fair to say that the contemporary engagement tools used by other organisations seem to be of a similar nature these days.
I disagree with the assertion that taking a decision back to a Council meeting is not "Public" or "Consultative". In fact, the vast majority of Council decisions are made in this way. There seems to be the suggestion that the subsequent decision on the modification to the Masterplan was "snuck through" in some way. I disagree that this is the case.
The FAQ text below may also provide some additional valuable information -
Why did the Council approve the demolition of the wool shed?
The crown is the current owner of the site, not the Council, which means the Council cannot approve the demolition.
What we decided was that we would simply allow for its demolition in our North Bank master plan, a document which is guiding our $9m redevelopment of the North Bank recreation area.
The authority for the demolition of the wool shed will have to be granted by the crown to whoever applies to conduct that demolition.
The Council has already sought consent from the Crown to demolish one wool shed on behalf of the Launceston Flood Authority, which required its removal for flood levee upgrades. That demolition took place in 2013.
The decision Aldermen took about the future of the wool shed at the October Council meeting was:
(That) the Council determines to amend the current North Bank master plan to include:
1) Modifications to the proposed levee-top walkway and eastern connection to the Silos development site.
2) Removal of the wool store building, currently proposed for only partial retention, and replacement with new landscaping features to represent the former building footprint.
3) Construction of purpose-built shade and shelter structures in multiple locations across the site to replace the single consolidated undercover area proposed by the current master plan (by the partial retention of the wool store roof structure).
4) Introduction of new interpretation material recording the historical value of the development and industrial activities of the site area, including display of the industrial equipment (mechanical wool presses) salvaged from the wool store buildings.
5) Where possible, use of remaining viable salvaged material from the wool store building, in the construction of new elements of the North Bank site.
Why can't we just leave the wool shed as it is until a suitable use can be found for it?
Well, let's talk about the flood levee protection system that protects the City of Launceston. In recent years the Council has embarked on a $60m project to upgrade and rebuild the levee system that protects low-lying suburbs like Invermay from flood.
Currently the wool shed sits between two levees -- the original flood levee near the riverbank, and the newly upgraded levee on the southern side of Lindsay Street.
The Launceston Flood Authority will eventually remove parts of the older levee, closest to the river. Why? Because our new levees are designed to cope with certain situations. If, for example, we left the old levee in place and a flood occurred, the old levee may fail. This would lead to a sudden surge of water impacting on the new levee, which would be more likely to fail. In short, the new levees are designed to handle a slowly rising level of water, not a sudden crashing inundation.
What this means is that the wool shed has no system of flood protection, and in fact will be more likely to flood and sustain damage in future.
What was the public consultation process for the wool shed?
For more than two years, the City of Launceston has been working on plans for the revitalisation of the North Bank precinct, which includes the land on which the wool shed now sits.
In September 2013, Aldermen voted to release a draft North Bank master plan to the community for a six-week public consultation period. The majority of that public consultation took place on the Council's Your Voice Your Launceston community engagement website, which resulted in more than 3000 'page views' over the consultation period.
That draft plan proposed the demolition of the majority of the wool shed — four bays would be left at the southern end of the site, and half a bay at the northern end.
It should be noted that the proposal called for all walls and floors to be removed; only the roof structure was to remain.
During that public consultation process, there were no material proposals for potential future uses of the wool shed, either in its entirety or assuming parts of the building were retained.
Why did the plan change from retaining four and a half roof bays to demolishing the whole building?
At the conclusion of the public consultation process, the Council began work with at least two groups who believed they could utilise the proposed remnant structure in the future. However, none of those uses aligned with the redevelopment objectives.
After reassessing the costs of retaining part of the structure and the limited future uses of such a structure, Council officers realised a modification to the master plan should occur.
Costs to retain the four and a half bays were estimated to be in the region of $750,000.
Therefore the matter was brought back to an open Council meeting for the Aldermen to make a ruling.
The money saved will now be diverted into creating more shade and shelter structures and interpretation areas around the North Bank site.
Meanwhile, a private developer had also proposed using salvaged materials from any demolition in a nearby development.
Why wasn't there any public consultation on the decision to demolish the entire wool shed?
A public council meeting is our primary community-based consultative and decision making process. Anyone is welcome to attend a Council meeting at Town Hall, and any resident or ratepayer can ask questions of officers or Aldermen about areas of Council business. Residents or ratepayers of other municipalities are able to lodge requests to ask questions of City of Launceston Aldermen or officers, and such requests are often granted.
Local media outlets are invited to cover proceedings, and also have channels to ask questions of Aldermen or officers outside of meetings. In addition, City of Launceston Council meetings are streamed live on our website. Agendas for Council meetings are published online five days ahead of each meeting.
Is the wool shed heritage listed?
No.
Is it true that the Council 'buried' a heritage report which indicated the wool sheds had historic value?
No, not only did we request and fund that report, we also published it online — in May, 2012. It was an attachment to an agenda item in 2012 regarding the demolition of the first wool shed, at a meeting that was open to the public, streamed online and attended by representatives of the media. The report has remained online ever since and can be found here.
But isn't it true that the building has historic value, even if it's not heritage listed?
Yes, there is no doubt the entire site has historic value. The port and industrial activities in this part of Launceston were significant in the city's past, but the wool shed building only represents one part of that.
We may not be able to retain the building, but we will be able to reinterpret the site in different ways, and tell the stories of the site, which we intend to do as part of the $9m North Bank redevelopment.
Why can't we just keep the wool shed in its entirety? Couldn't it be used for something like an indoor market?
Firstly, the wool shed sits on the 'wet' side of the city's redeveloped flood levees, which means it would require a specially-built protective levee.
Secondly, the building will require significant investment to allow future use. The Council is unaware of any material proposal to conduct a market or any other activity in a wholly retained wool shed.
Finally, the Council has clearly indicated over a number of years that at best it only intended to retain a handful of roof bays as part of the North Bank development. Aldermen later reviewed this decision and voted for full demolition of the shed.
If we had an unlimited budget and unlimited time, we could no doubt find ways to refurbish and protect the building — but it was never our intent and it was never an intent we took to the community.
Hasn't the Council allowed new developments like Bunnings and the silos to proceed, which are not protected by the flood levees?
No, the new levee runs roughly east to west along the southern side of Lindsay Street. Bunnings sits on the northern side of the levee, and is thus protected.
In October, 2013, the State Government announced $1.5m in funding to allow a special flood levee to be constructed to protect the silos site. Thus it, too, is protected.
If a special levee can be built for the silos development, couldn't we also build one to protect the wool shed?
Potentially, but the Council does not have the funding to deliver an outcome like that. In addition, the building itself requires significant work. The other issue is demand; despite various ideas, there are no material proposals to redevelop the building.
Isn't it inappropriate for the Council to make such a decision at 'five minutes to midnight', so soon before the election?
There is no 'caretaker period' for Council elections like there is for other tiers of Government. However, it is important to note that Aldermen could have made a decision on demolishing the wool shed some time before the election, but instead chose to defer a decision to allow them to seek more information. Coincidentally this meant the decision was taken close to the election, but Aldermen were entirely within their rights to vote on the matter. Moreover, Aldermen had been working on the North Bank master plan for more than two years before the decision to demolish the entire shed was taken.
I have read on Facebook that 'a number of proposals have been put to Council in recent weeks' regarding potential future uses of the shed. Is that true?
The Council is aware of many ideas, but no material proposals. In other words, no one has approached the Council with a proposal and funds to back it.
I trust the above information will assist.
Regards, Albert van Zetten, Mayor, Launceston City Council
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
VALE Ronald George Grant
In October 1954, while walking home from work as a boilermaker apprentice at the Launceston Railways Workshops, Ron told the story of how he was approached by a friend of the family and asked if he would like to learn to play the bagpipes. Ron's answer was enthusiastic - "what do I have to do?"
Be at the army barracks at 7pm Mondays. "This is what I did for 21 months. This included two 2 - week camps plus the odd weekend camp and in barracks tuition". And so was born his love and affection for the pipes.
Ron was in the CFM Pipe Band – his other duties included first aid, as he was attached to the Medical Corp.XXX
In July 1955, Ron joined a civilian band for three years – the St Andrews Caledonian Pipe Band, and in 1958 was invited to help start another band along with about 12 other pipers and drummers.
"I was with this band (Northern Highlanders) for 7 years – the last two as pipe major". But by 1965 he had rejoined St Andrews, where he remained for a further 32 years – 28 as pipe major.
In 1999, Ron was requested by Launceston RSL to provide pipers and drummers so the RSL would have its own pipe band.
"I was pipe major from inception until I retired from this position in 2012 because of ill health." Ron was a proud and much-appreciated member of the RSL Pipe Band until his death earlier this week.
He played in 5 Tattoos – invited with RSL Pipe Band to appear at ‘Bundanoon is Brigadoon', interchanging year for year with Ingleburn RSL Pipe Band. In January 2001, he was presented at Government House with the Centenary Service Medal, and in 2008, was recognized as Volunteer of the year.
During the late 1960's Ron started teaching pipers and drummers privately at Scotch College.
Following amalgamation with Oakburn College, Ron began with the co-ed Scotch Oakburn College in 1982.
Ron made a huge contribution to the school and showed a passionate belief in helping young people grow and learn ....eventually tallying up 31 years to coach and support the Scotch Oakburn pipers and drummers on a voluntary basis.
He was awarded the school’s ‘Community Service Award’ during that time. His patience, dedication and cheeky sense of humour have endeared him to both students and staff during that time. When the school has required pipes and drums for a special occasion Ron has been there to support and mentor the students and when students have been unavailable, Ron himself has come along and piped for school functions. Ron continued to do this despite serious health issues until early this year when his illness no longer allowed him to participate in the same way.
Outside band life and tutoring privately, Ron contributed enormously to the community. It has been said that Ron was happy to turn up with his beloved pipes to the opening of an envelope, if requested, and his passing will leave quite a hole in the programs of many worthy events organisers.
Ron repaired and rejuvenated pipes, and at the request of the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, he took from their collection the old pipes of Jock the Piper (James Lamont farmer & dairyman of Braemar near Vermont Road, Tasmania's first settler/piper). Made playable, Jock's Pipes were returned to the Museum, brought out only for special occasions, such as in 2011 at a lecture commemorating the 200th Anniversary of Governor Lachlan Macquarie's first visit to van Dieman's Land.
This old set of pipes had been played by Jock, James Lamont, for Governor Macquarie's second visit to van Dieman's Land in 1819, and so it was fitting that their restorer, Ron Grant played on his own pipes at the 200th year commemoration at the Government Cottage site in City Park on 8th December 2011.
Over the years, Ron Grant has not only helped and inspired countless students in their personal and musical growth, but he has also nurtured that bagpipe and drum tradition throughout the community. He will be sorely missed, but what a wonderful legacy he has left. Ron George Grant is an exemplar of the ordinary actually being extraordinary and that's something we should all profitably embrace and celebrate.
Lionel Morrell, President Heritage Protection Society (Tasmania) Inc.
Thankyou to Scotch Oakburn College and Ray Norman for contributions.
A Heritage Glitch
 |
| CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE |
This photograph in today's Examiner is rather revealing in so much it demonstrates the way the evidence of Launceston's heritage is being incrimentally removed. The Port that was Launceston is hardly in evidence. It is almost as if Launceston is ashamed of its industrial heritage and the city's new and recent arrivals who know nothing, or very little, of it hardly care it seems – why would they.
"Heritage values" whilst they're spoken of, and its even something you might speak of, but do not stand up to be counted on. Need you? Here we appear to be more concerned to rush headlong into a future that is careless of its past. This is somewhat surprising in Tasmania as one of its cultural assets is its layered histories. Its these histories that increasingly people from elsewhere will come to see compared to the unrelenting encroachment of expedient development at home. This is now so evident in China.
'Adaptive Resuse' is an idea in architecture and design is not new but there seems to be an allergy to it in Launceston in favour of some kind of Gold Coast aesthetic. Which is curious as there are increasing numbers of south east Queenslanders moving to Tasmania for its more temperate climate and the increasing all in a rush lifestyle back in Queensland.
Monday, November 10, 2014
LETTER: LAUNCESTON INTERIM PLANNING SCHEME 2012
HERITAGE PROTECTION SOCIETY (TASMANIA) INC.
P.O. Box 513 Launceston Tasmania 7250
4th November 2014Alderman Darren Alexander Launceston City Council Town Hall
St John Street LAUNCESTON TAS 7250
By email contact@dalexander.com.au
Re: LAUNCESTON INTERIM PLANNING SCHEME 2012
Dear Alderman Alexander,
Congratulations on your election to Launceston City Council. We are hoping that your enthusiasm for this city will be strengthened by the other new councillors and a timely review of goals and a fresh way forward for a new approach.
Heritage protection and conservation is a very important part of residents' lives in 2014, in this, Australia's third oldest city. In order to attract people to remain living in this place, to attract newcomers and to encourage people to visit, it is important that Launceston continues to present a point of difference compared to other places. Essential to the protection and maintenance of our heritage fabric and special townscapes, is the role and responsibilities of Launceston City Council. ..... Click here to read more
WOOLcity Heritage
There is a myriad of stories invested in these sheds and given the chance these same sheds will see more of the city's heritage played out under the cover of corrugated iron.
Sunday, November 2, 2014
A GLIMPSE BACK AT CH SMITH
About our heritage passions run deep. Innuendos abound around this site but it needs to be said that the proof seems to be in the pudding. The idea that 'the developer knows best' leaves all kind of ground for shonky politics – even too many opportunities for inappropriate bureaucratic activity. BUT, isn't there always a 'but', that's what happens when heritage gets in the way of development and a truck load of other people's money.THIS FLOOR IS SUPPOSED TO BE ROTTEN?
If it was the case just think about these kids, well young people, drawing on this floor in this way if it was "rotten". We DO NOT THINK SO! but there you go that the kind of thing that's said when ... we'll that to you to think about.
 |
| GO HERE TO SEE MORE |
Friday, October 31, 2014
HERITAGE, WOOLSTORES & HERITAGE
Examiner May 14 2012
The flood authority was willing to foot the estimated $250,000 demolition bill if the council agreed to the demolition yesterday. Only the smaller wool store will be levelled, leaving the larger Roberts wool store intact as well as the silos.
A consultant hired by the council found there was significant cultural heritage at the site and the structures would satisfy listing under the Tasmanian Heritage Register. Council general manager Robert Dobrzynski sought a peer review of the findings, which found less heritage value in the buildings ... watch this space for more on this story as it shifts around
CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLAREGE
 |
| CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE ORIGINAL REPORT |
A CHRONOLOGY:
- The old Websters Woolstore was demolished.
- The Silos were purchased by Mr. Stuart’s company for a Hotel.
- The State Government paid for an extra levee to protect the Silos for Mr. Stuart’s benefit.
- Mr. Stuart then reduced the capacity of the Hotel development.
- Mr. Stuart now offers to demolish the Roberts Woolstore to obtain the roof trusses to use in his Hotel, providing the Launceston Ratepayers pay to remove the asbestos from the structure.
- The LCC plans now show changes to connect public walkways directly into Mr. Stuart’s Hotel, and the extensive garden will become effectively an integral part of the Hotel’s setting; a very large public carpark will be constructed by LCC (this allows Mr. Stuart to convert his under-cover car park to a Trade Exhibition Centre from time to time – the use for which the Wool Store could ably be put, but Stuart gets the income); and there is a FOOT BRIDGE to be constructed across the North Esk River to allow Silo Hotel customers to more-easily connect to Seaport and the City without trudging all of the way past Bunnings...... More as this story unfolds
 |
| The silos under construction – The Examiner OCT 31 2014 • OCT 30 2014 • OCT 15 2014 • SEPT 22 2014 MAY 29 2013 • MAY 14 2012 • NOV 2011 • JUNE 14 2012 |
 |
| CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE |
 |
| CLICK HERE FOR THE EXAMINER STORY |
PLEASE LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS BELOW
LETTER: Demolish The Woolstore?
There’s absolutely no reason for people to visit Launceston. Nothing to see. Tourism is the life blood that keeps the world living. Can you imagine our promotional brochures. Come visit Launceston and see the biggest bitumen city centre car park in all of Australia. We call it The Hole in the Heart. It’s unique. But hurry. Must end soon. Oh, didn’t I say ? There used to be an historic building on the site but it got in the way of development. Oh, but that didn’t happen anyway.
But read on. The brochure has more. Across the little muddy creek on the other side of town, you will come to North Bank. It’s brand new. It’s a great green paddock. It’s just about as unique as the The Hole in the Heart. For you see, there used to be a wonderful historical building on this site also. But out came the same old argument, it got in the way of development. Ah, but the glossy pamphlet will say, our leaders learnt a lot in the intervening years. So they placed for your enlightenment, in the left hand bottom corner of the site, all nicely tucked away, some interesting interpretive material of historical value representing the former building’s footprint. But sorry, the building had to go. You must see, it got in the way of the physical connectivity and cohesive integration of the site. It got in the way of enhanced design development, of a cohesive interrelationship with the hotel. And the dear old historic building anyway was showing it’s age, poor thing. It needed rehabilitation and on-going maintenance. But wait, there’s more. In times of global warfare where nothing is safe, the historical value of the site is embedded into it’s very soil. Yes, that’s a flash of brilliance – knock down the historical industrial building and bury it’s footprint.
No dear tourist, I’m not making this up. It’s all there in the glossy black and white demolition brochure presented to council yesterday in front of an unbelieving, shocked public gallery. And mentioned therein, several times, is the historical and cultural value of the site.
So that’s our tourism livelihood knocked down. Our financial well being demolished. And the city dies as it’s heart stops.
JIM DICKENSON, Launceston.
Saturday, October 18, 2014
C H SMITH SITE: Subject of Interest
CH Smith Building - 30 years of Art Deco neglect
For Context Go To: http://modernismtas.blogspot.com.au/2009/10/northern-tasmania-newspaper-examiner.html
SAVE OUR STORIES SAVE OUR HERITAGE
A view of the old Cordial Factory/ Flour Store on the C H Smith site when the waters edge came right to the door and ships were easily loaded/unloaded pre 1900 (photo probably c 1870).
This building was one of the first to be seen by visitors as boats arrived in Launceston on their way to Queens Wharf in the North Esk River to tie up......and also the last vision as boats left to take our young soldier recruits off to the Boer War and WW1.
This old relic is a must-save as it is older than any building surviving in the City of Melbourne.
Please don’t let it be knocked down.
Have Your Say
Comment Below
No simple/lazy solution on factory site ...REALLY!?
 |
| CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE |
"A DOMINO effect of procedures needs to take place at the C.H. Smith site quickly, for any development to go ahead according to the developer. Brile financial controller Peter Velt told The Examiner yesterday, there was no simple solution and a number of options were being considered ... CLICK HERE TO READ MORE
The opportunity for 'the simple solution' here was squandered a long time ago. HPS was not around when those opportunities existed but others were. The driver here seems to be development at any cost. Maybe, just maybe, there is some room for some meaningful public consultation in the search for a solution. What about the precinct's Community of Ownership & Interest?
All wisdom does not always reside in academic institution. Practical people with experience may have something to offer.
Friday, October 17, 2014
Launceston's Heritage At Risk
Save Launceston's Heritage
It's
Our cityscapeOur heritage buildings
Our streetscapes
Our cultural landscape
Our stories
Our placedness
THE PONRABBEL
The PONRABBEL operated as a steam 'bucket dredge' in the Tamar River from the 1920s until the 1960s. She is the stuff of legends. The Port of Launceston Authority was determined that as many ships as possible should berth at wharves close to the city centre. Attempts to move the port further down the river were vigorously resisted as Launcestonians imagined their city as a port ... CLICK HERE TO READ MORE
The PONRABBEL lay at rest just off Tamar Island
Launceston's Prince's Square
Originally a clay-pit where convicts made bricks for the construction of St Johns Church, Princes Square is an extraordinary square with a colourful history. Princes Square was part of Launceston's network of planned public places, a formal and organised public space that demonstrated European sophistication, and remains an unusually intact and original 19th century town square. It was created in the image of similar British designs, its elm trees, like its name, suggested its suitability as a site of royal celebrations. Before the square was opened in 1859, the site had been used as a military parade ground before being set aside as a public reserve in 1826.
In 1853 it was where the people of Launceston celebrated the cessation of the transportation of convicts, and the Jubilee of the foundation of the Colony of Van Diemen's Land (Tasmania) on 10th August 1803. In 1834, Prince's Square was rumoured to have been the site of a public execution of two bushrangers ... Click here to go to source and much much more!
Thursday, October 16, 2014
Launceston C 1900 & C H Smith
Here is the c1900 photograph of Launceston, with C H Smith's complex in the centre foreground. The muddy foreshore is much as was described in 1806 when the place was first settled by Europeans.
Later after 1912, that whole area was reclaimed and to the right hand side became what is now Royal Park and today is fronted by the Seaport Development. The canals that had been dug through the mud to reach the warehouses had by this stage been filled in but the little sailing ketch was able to reach what was called Gunn's Wharf (Gunn's Mill and Timberyard buildings are immediately behind) and the large building to the left is the Malthouse for the old Tamar Brewery owned by Scott & Griffiths.
This site was not purchased by C H Smith until 1937 and some of the old brewery buildings remained there until mid 1970's when it was demolished for the Northern Outlet Extension Road.
There is quite a bit of Launceson's heritage invested in this site.
Sunday, October 12, 2014
Launceston’s heritage fabric has been placed at risk by The Launceston City Council
The Interim Planning Scheme was both flawed and incomplete and this must be a concern to all citizens of the city.
The community should not sit back and allow Launceston City Council to devalue:
- Our cityscape
- Our heritage buildings
- Our streetscapes
- Our cultural landscape
- Our stories and placedness
"Local Government has a responsibility pursuant to the Act to preserve heritage and this includes keeping their planning schemes up to date by reviewing them every 5 years, including their heritage lists as a matter of course. It is regrettable that Local Government, including Launceston, the largest and wealthiest municipality, has not delivered on these responsibilities. By having an up to date list of heritage places, a greater level of certainty exists.
Unashamedly repeating what we wrote 3 months ago, there are a very great number of issues, errors, inconsistencies, omissions and inadequacies with the Interim Planning Scheme, not to mention that many aspects from the previous scheme were not incorporated into the interim scheme, and resulting in an extremely deficient and inadequate document, not even representing a 'status quo' situation on many fundamental aspects of planning that have been in place for the previous and even earlier planning schemes stemming back 20 or more years."
And limiting these comments now to just the heritage provisions of the Interim Scheme, it remains of great concern to us when the Interim Scheme was unveiled at the end of 2012, that:
- the list of heritage places scheduled had not been updated since at least 1996 (the State Government and Launceston City Council had shared the considerable expense of engaging an interstate heritage expert to update this list in around 2002. This study identified a great number of additional places, but still nothing has been added as promised);
- the list of Significant Trees had not been updated since 1985, and this list of important and significant trees, has now been deleted altogether;
- the list of heritage precincts that had existed in the previous and even earlier schemes has been deleted and some sort of alternative interim protection has been given to all individual properties within the pre-existing precincts, even those that have no heritage value in their own right. Aspects of precincts that are located within roadways and nature strips etc., such as trees, landscaping, stone gutters and stone retaining walls etc., and previously protected, are currently not protected at all.
New provisions of the state-wide model planning scheme that called for protection of archaeological sites are blank pages in the interim scheme -
- Launceston's burial grounds, some located on converted recreational grounds, both private and publically owned, and on private residential land, are not protected at all;
- Archaeology in Launceston is unprotected by the planning scheme, and in particular where there are sites that are highly regarded as potentially yielding very important archaeological 'finds' as they have already been identified as having had buildings from the 1826 and 1835 surveys of Launceston, but are disregarded.
The above content has to be of concern as it is an embarrassment compared to that contained in the Hobart Council’s Interim Planning Scheme.
It is time to now speak to the candidates particularly those Councillors who continue to undermine the city’s core strength and devalue our environment.
 |
| CLICK HERE |
Sunday, September 14, 2014
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)