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

LETTER: GORGE HOTEL DA ADVERTISEMENT

Thank you for your reply to our urgent email to Leanne Hurst sent yesterday morning.

We disagree with what you say, in that the Council’s website for Public Notices has twice been changed with regards to notifying the closing date for representations to be received.

We previously offered to provide you with the evidence of these incorrect notifications.

You are attempting to explain these errors as (mere) clerical errors. 

That is not the case. 

The Council’s webpage is what is exhibited in the Customer Service Centre via the computer terminals accessible there, which Council argues complied with the legislation where it is required to exhibit the application including plans and specifications. 

We repeat, it is not, as stated by Leanne Hurst in her earlier email “an additional public service not required by legislation”.

Not only has the incorrect information been exhibited at the CustomerService Centre, the actual computer terminals that Council provide to create the exhibition, have not been functioning. 

Again today, when I attended the Customer Service Centre, the terminals were not functioning, and upon enquiry of Service Centre Staff, one of the four terminals provided was able to be turned on. 

That sole terminal was extremely slow, and as this application comprises a very large file of around 580 pages, we estimate that it would take around an hour just to open each page. 

If an enquirer were to need to refer backwards and forwards from one section or part or page of the application, and have time to read each page, it is likely to take an entire day to peruse just the Gorge Hotel application.

This is rediculous and quite inappropriate and no one seeking to avail themselves of the public exhibition of this application at the Service Centre could be expected to allocate this amount of time.

Again the staff admitted there were ongoing problems with these terminals.

Taking into account that a number of people may arrive to inspect advertised development applications at the same time, and because there are a large number of applications being exhibited at this time, we cannot understand how Council can argue that the exhibition of applications at the Customer Service Centre can in reality comply with the legislation.

And so we again repeat that to overcome these deficiencies in the advertising and exhibition of this development application, it will be necessary for fresh advertising, notifications and exhibition of at least this Development Application, to be recommenced.

Please reply to this request as a matter of urgent importance.

Regards

Lionel Morrell

for Heritage Protection Society (Tasmania) Inc.

UTAS RELOCATION TO INVERESK

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Two recently released comprehensive reports contain no good news for the UTas proposal to move its University campus from Newnham to the Flood Zone of the Inveresk tidal flats:

(i) The North and South Esk Rivers Flood Modelling and Mapping Updates - Volume 1: Technical Report and Volume 2: Flood Mapping – by BMT Consultants, commis sioned by the City of Launceston and released in January 2019.

(ii) An Evaluative Review of the UTas Inveresk Precinct Redevelopment – commissioned by the Northern Tasmanian Network Partners & Associates, authored by Mr Chris Penna, and released in March 2 019.

Available on the CoL website, the BMT Reports are based on the latest flood (2016) , sea level rise and climate change data, and make worrying projections . The reports warn that Launceston’s much trumpeted reconstructed flood levees are no longer cap able of protecting Invermay and the City from their designed 0.5% (1:200 year) flood event, and that the level of protection is now halved to just 1% (1:100 year), assuming the levees function properly. The report predicts that a current 1:200 year flood w ould well overtop the levees and that Invermay would be subject to flood waters 2m to 5m deep at Hazard Class 5 level – ie Unsafe for vehicles and people. All buildings vulnerable to structural damage. Some less robust buildings subject to failure.

Apart from its low - key website, the C ity o f L aunceston has been modestly silent about the BMT reports, although it would be expected that part of its civic duty is to make Invermay/City residents and businesses fully aware of the implications of the report s. The C ity o f L aunceston and UTas have similarly disregarded several commissioned expert environmental reports (involving seismic, geotechnical and flood/tidal factors), from the 1990s onwards about Inveresk/Invermay, that all highlight the inadvisability and dangers of developments at Inveresk, especially expensive major projects that will house large numbers of people. Key aspects of these commissioned reports and others of relevance, are describ ed in the Evaluative Review , together with a per tinent sec tion that highlights the reports’ advices about the problems/issues related to development at Inveresk.

Any content and key messages from this library shelf of reports were conveniently not included in the original 2016 UTas marketing document upon which funding commitments of $200m were made by Federal and State governments and upon which the C ity o f L aunceston gifted Inveresk and Willis St land parcels to UTas. The Evaluative Review finds that no substantial, evidenced, environmental, economic or social cases have been publicly made by UTas or the City o f L aunceston to validate the Inveresk Precinct Redevelopment. The promised intents of UTas to both maintain and develop its existing Launceston based tertiary education offerings and to create and promote a range of 2 - year industry related associate degree course are strongly supported by the Evaluative Review . Nevertheless the vital provision of quality University courses for the Nor th has been disappearing. The Evaluative Review clearly do cuments the inadequacies of the 2016 marketing document and associated processes that managed to gain both political support and Government funding. As UTas has acknowledged that the cost of the original proposal has increased markedly and the projected number of additional students has decreased significantly, the funding and land gifts were provided under quite inaccurate assumptions. As the project sought m ore than $100m of Federal money, it should have been subject to much earlier stages of assessment by the `independent’ Infrastructure Australia (IA). This did not occur, and the final Business Case was only submitted to IA on 31 Jan 2019. It is now under e valuation, although rationalised approval is anticipated as the Federal funding has already been handed over to the State. The Evaluative Review shows that a lack of due process and due diligence has been a consistent, notable part of the entire project si nce its inception.

The Evaluative Review also demonstrates that the Launceston Community has been, and continues to be, intimidated into accepting the UTas relocation proposal, or face the threat from UTas that it would withdraw or reduce its local Univer sity presence. Similarly it appears that IA is under political pressure to approve the Northern Transformation Program. Such intimidatory pressures seem to have displaced rational assessments, and in most workplaces such behaviour could be labelled as bull ying and deemed unacceptable.

Additionally 

(i) the reconstructed levees have never been fully signed - off after professional inspection, with both the concrete levees and the complete system still awaiting such formal approval as required

(ii) the risk of seismic action has not been considered 

(iii) parking and traffic congestion issues have not been adequately addressed (iv) there has been no comparative cost - benefit analysis of redevelopment at Newnham.

Media Conference Location : Boland St Nth Esk Levee o pposite Willis St carpark 11am

The Evaluative Review, the BMT reports, and a range of other relevant reports/communications are at:

https://northerntasmaniannetworkpartners.blogspot.com/

. Gorge Hotel plan lodged to council

CLICK HERE FOR THE SOCIETY'S REPRESENTATION

Plans for a $50 million hotel have officially been lodged with the City of Launceston council. ..................... The nine-storey Gorge Hotel is set to be built at the TRC site, which is owned by the JAC Group. ..................... A 145-room hotel, 500 people conference centre, 200-seat bar and restaurant, function rooms, rooftop cocktail bar, day spa and gym is proposed. ..................... Parking for 175 vehicles is also planned. ..................... The hotel would be built over two stages. ..................... The Josef Chromy group commissioned six different architects paying them $5000 each to design a hotel before selecting the best concept, the development application said. ..................... "Most of the architects spent over five times that amount on their designs for the opportunity to participate in this project," it said. ..................... CBG Architects, from Melbourne, was awarded the contract which allowed them to prepare plans and elevations for the development application based on their concept design. ..................... Tessellated glass panels are the building's "most notable features", with proposed rooftop planting and building setback to give context to the surrounding landscape. The facade is designed to disperse reflected light. ..................... "The tessellations have been designed to take on the appearance of the waterfalls and cliff faces commonly found at Cataract Gorge, the hotels' namesake," the application said. \

 RELATED STORIES: 

Top end hotel ticking hotel demand boxes

First look at Gorge Hotel plans

Innovative approach to hotel

A new vision for the North

 The hotel design has two main components: a podium level of two-storeys and a centrally located tower to a maximum of nine-storeys. ..................... The podium features rock patterned precast concrete panels to give the appearance of a cliff face. ..................... The car park would be located in the basement. ..................... Three international hotel operators have sought to manage the hotel as a four-and-half star to a five-star hotel under their branding. The hotel has been designed to meet their needs. While the application does not say who the chains are, two already have hotels in Hobart, and another would be its first hotel in Tasmania. ..................... It is estimated that the introduction of premium hotel brands such as Hyatt, Marriot, InterContinental and Accor to Tasmania would introduce new visitor demand of about 10 per cent of all guests that stay in those hotels, the application said. ..................... The site is not heritage listed. ..................... A bottleshop, carpark, service station and pub currently operate from the site. ..................... The application is open for comment until May 1. .... STORY GLEANED FROM MTHE EXAMINER