KEEP PLANNING LOCAL – Plans are of little importance, but planning is essential

 

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) 

MEDIA RELEASE; Major Projects Bill

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

MEDIA RELEASE – Major Projects Bill & Planning Commission Review

Much could be written about the progress and effectiveness of Tasmania’s Planning system and Heritage Legislation over the past 30 years, since direct community action in the early hours of Sunday 5^th March 1990, prevented the wholesale demolition of George Fry's old house and store at 22-24 Charles Street, Launceston (part of the later infamous C H Smith Complex).

[Ref. The National Trust’s publication “In Trust for the Nation” published 2000, pages 51/52, for more of the story].

It was abject neglect by the statutory authorities over that 28 year period, to have not ensured the protection of the two buildings. The C H Smith site was purchased 2 years ago for redevelopment by JMC, and the State Government had offered to lease the complex from them for its Service Centre, also loaning Launceston Council $9M to construct car parking on the site. The fact that that none of the four owners who had previously purchased the place, had the money to undertake the restoration task, let alone the overall redevelopment, has been erroneously blamed by some quarters on the Tasmanian Planning System. The State Government had weighed in during the early days, agreeing to transfer ownership of strategic Crown Land next door to 24 Charles Street to the Redline Bus Company to facilitate its later-failed Transit Centre, as a means of Nos 22 &24 Charles St being retained. That former Crown Land freely handed over all of those decades ago, today comprises about one third of the area of the present C H Smith development site.

In 2020, the community's interests are still relying on direct action by its members to protect its cultural heritage and the amenity so treasured and finally recognised by our tourism industry. Our governments at all three levels have failed the community. The Tasmanian community battles to save and protect the cultural characters of its major cities, Hobart and Launceston from the blights of ridiculously tall buildings. These planning issues include several Fragrance proposals and the Gorge Hotel; cable car proposals on Mt Wellington and within Launceston's Cataract Gorge Reserve. Further afield, large subdivisions and destructive developments in scenic heritage places like Cambria Green; intrusive developments in National Parks and Reserves like Lake Malbena; not to mention the imbroglios with highly secretive and contentious developments like Westbury Prison, mobilising and dividing cultural communities, and then...there were the Pulp Mills and forests warfare disasters !

When will governments learn … to listen to and consult with their communities?

At this historic time, when the world, Australia and now the state of Tasmania stares down the rapid spread of  Coronavirus disease (COVID-19 health crisis) Tasmanians are being expected to respond to invitations to review both the TASMANIAN MAJOR PROJECTS BILL and the TASMANIAN PLANNING COMMISSION’S ROLES AND FUNCTIONS, in a ridiculous time frame closing on 9^th. April 2020.

This is not the time to impose these issues on our Tasmanian community, or our parliamentarians even, who are now under severe pressure to control their personal health anxiety and that of family and close friends. A pandemic is fertile ground for those already suffering from anxiety stresses, and the worsening paralysis of the thought of becoming ill and dying.

Heritage Protection Society (Tasmania) Inc. calls on the Tasmanian Government to immediately suspend the progression of these changes, and for the time being reassure the community there will be no changes to the present system until ‘normality’ to our Tasmanian existence is restored, financial recovery is underway, and a proper and considered view on possible reviews of the planning system may then be entertained by our community.

Lionel Morrell

President

Heritage Protection Society (Tasmania) Inc.     Tel 0428137050

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

SUBMISSION: Cimitiere St Carpark 71 Cimitiere Street LAUNCESTON TAS 7250

22 August 2017 
 The General Manager, 
Mr Robert Dobrzynski 
Launceston City Council 
Town Hall St John Street 
LAUNCESTON TAS 7250

By email only toRobert.Dobrzynski@launceston.tas.gov.au 

 Dear Sir, .

Re : DA 0377/2017, Visitor Accommodation - hotel: Food Services - restaurant; construction of a hotel, subservient uses and a restaurant; associated works including demolition, provision of landscaping, fences, access and parking; associated works in the adjoining road reservations including removal of 3 kerbside parking spaces for the provision of vehicle crossings in Tamar Street and Cimitiere Street (re-advertised) - Cimitiere St Carpark 71 Cimitiere Street LAUNCESTON TAS 7250. 

We refer to the Notice in The Examiner newspaper on August 9, 2017.

Having perused the documents published on Council's website, we wish to make the following representation in relation to this Discretionary Application. 

For some time, many residents of Launceston have been trying to reconcile high-rise development with heritage protection. From our research of cities world-wide, in almost every city where Tall Building Policies have been implemented, such policies were introduced only as a consequence of public outrage sparked by the construction of an individual building popularly perceived as violating the character of the city. Since 1977, Launceston City Council has promoted restraint in the construction of tall buildings in the central area. The LCC's Launceston National Estate Conservation Study promoted low-level developments of 2-3 storeys, and when taller buildings were proposed, these were to have a 3-3.5 storey podium at the street alignment, with the upper 5-6 storeys of taller buildings set back below a 35 0 line projected from the property boundary on the opposite side of the street.

The HPS(T)Inc. subscribes to the views and philosophies expressed in The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, The Burra Charter, where the Charter advocates a cautious approach to change : do as much to care for the place and to make it useable, but otherwise change it as little as possible so that its cultural significance is retained. Launceston is Australia's third oldest city, and an essential cornerstone of its cultural heritage significance is its limitation in the height of new developments. Tasmanian tourism authorities and including Launceston City Council itself, commonly describe Launceston as having the best preserved cityscape and with a fascinating history traced in its beautiful old buildings and streetscapes. 

To many people, the understanding of Launceston as a place of cultural heritage significance, may be difficult to express in words and whilst remain important and essential to their sense of well-being, can remain somewhat elusive and difficult to readily define. Quite recently, on 7th. April 2017, Historic England published a highly regarded and commendable research document UNDERSTANDING PLACE content.historicengland.org.uk that, we submit, may readily be applied to undertaking an historic area assessment here in Launceston. We recommend that Launceston's planners investigate this document and follow the advice therein to establish the qualities and contributions to urban planning that gives Launceston its cultural heritage significance. 

The failings of the Launceston Interim Planning Scheme 2015 have been well stated and agreed, including the failings and incompleteness of its heritage provisions. Your planners will have an opportunity when finalising Launceston's version of the Statewide Planning Scheme to rectify and complete the task, and by formulating an understanding of place, a sound foundation for the sustainable cultural heritage development of Launceston can be achieved. 

Prior to the establishment of modern planning controls in Tasmania and Launceston in particular, from around the early 1960's , a number of adverse developments have been allowed in Launceston. These buildings are regularly referred to by notable visiting cultural experts, with the question put "How ever did you allow the construction of these buildings to occur ?" 

The list of inappropriate developments include: The Telstra Building in St John Street, (constructed as the Telephone Exchange to half this height in 1960's and then doubled in height in the 1970's) so as to alternatively prevent the demolition of the historic Johnstone & Wilmot buildings next door, previously acquired by the Commonwealth Government as a site to expand the telephone exchange. It is an interesting note that during this period the Commonwealth Government was exempt from Local Government planning provisions. .

Grand Chancellor Hotel, Cameron Street, (constructed as Launceston International Hotel in 1984) but illegally constructed to an additional height 2m in excess of the permit conditions. 93 York Street (constructed as MLC Building in1958) Queen Victoria Maternity Hospital (constructed in the 1960's on a very restrictive site as a part of the older maternity hospital complex and limited by encircling residential development. Henty House, Cameron Street Civic Square (constructed 1983 to a much reduced height following very widespread public objection and condemnation of the State Government's 1970's proposed office tower 12 storeys high). The present building was begrudgingly accepted by the public as a less-damaging concept. Quest Hotel 16 Paterson Street,( constructed as D W Murray, originally only 3 storeys, then significantly raised to 6 storeys due to commercial expansion of the Murray warehousing business early in the 20th. century. .

Launceston is a low level city with only a handful of church spires, the Post Office Centenary clock tower and the celebratory tower of Albert Hall punctuating the townscape. Some industrial chimney stacks at the Railyards, Launceston General Hospital, Patons and Baldwin, (several now demolished), and industrial structures such as the Vertical Retort at the Gasworks, the Grain Silo's at King's Wharf, and brewing equipment at Boags Brewery, remain and if not still in operation, are recycled for new and adventurous purposes. 

The pressure for increased density for development in our current day cities does not always demand high rises. In enlightened communities, where the level of living and working amenity is not so highly respected or regulated, high-rise development spores a 'Geography of Nowhere'. 

Paris, a much adored low-rise city referred to as le ville lumiere (city of light, where daylight and sunlight penetrates deeply into its apartments and workplaces right down to pavement level) has a well-researched benefit of a lower level of sufferers of depression, due to the positive influence of light on the wellbeing of Parisiennes. Paris outlawed tall buildings in the city centre in 1974, and in the Tsarist Russian capital of Saint Petersburg, (now identified by UNESCO) buildings could not be taller than the Winter Palace. In Rome there cannot be a building higher than St Peter's Basilica. Even in the highly commercialised city of Bali, Indonesia, following the unpopular construction of the tall Bali Beach Hotel, nothing can now be built higher than a coconut tree at 12m ! 

There are spectacular views to be gained from low level developments on Launceston's surrounding hills, so unlike the 'flat' featureless terrains of many other cities, Launceston does not need to build up to gain elevation and outlooks. Please don't gamble with the 200-year old legacy that exhibits the cultural heritage of Launceston. The height limit at 12m for Launceston may be the single most powerful thing that has made our city so amazingly fulfilling. Once you make a change, in any place or regard, it is essentially irrevocable, and you have stepped on a slippery slope that makes other undesirable changes more likely. 

The irreverent prize for Britain's worst building the Carbuncle Cup is awarded each year, with such places as the building dubbed the "Walkie Talkie" because of its obvious likeness, being one of the notable recipients. In Launceston circles this proposal for the Verge Hotel on Council's Cimitiere Street Car Park site fronting Tamar Street and our much valued Albert Hall, has already been dubbed the "Noodle Box". Please do not allow this potential carbuncle to be dubbed as Launceston's version of a recipient the Carbuncle Cup, a violation of the principles of the cultural heritage character of Launceston. 

In conclusion, we ask that in view what we believe to be a significant opposition to this tall building development application, that Council does not approve the application, instead encouraging this applicant to reduce the height to a limit of 12m and expand the footprint to encompass additional land if necessary to achieve their required room capacity. .

We look forward to your consideration of this representation and feedback on this project. 

Yours faithfully, 

 Lionel Morrell 

 President Heritage Protection Society (Tasmania) Inc.

HUON PINE: Expressions of Interest:

Huon pine figures among the few materials in the world that have come to define a place. The stories linked to it run very deep in Tasmania and only some have been told. In the vernacular, there’s just so much stuff linked to this wood. 

The history of how this wood was harvested and used is more fascinating than the timber. The stores focus attention upon fascinating histories still hidden in what is thought to be Tasmania’s most important tree. Some of this has been published but much more remains hidden. 

The early exploitation of it for boat timber and furniture, to its present day statues as a rare and expensive wood where anything made from it becomes a kind of treasure that in turn have all kinds of information buried within them. The call is now out for those who have something to offer a publication project set against this background. Please contact the initial project facilitators via Treva Alen treva.alen@bigpond.com ”

HUON PINE AND DEEP HISTORIES
Looking at history/histories from a standpoint of anthropology it is said that it “reveals a discipline driven by fission and fusion”. Such an approach sets the scene for something that might be described as ‘deep history’ and as an example of what might be achieved if ‘anthropology’ is permitted to inform critical discourse along the road of fusion rather than continue with the atomised interrogation of what’s known, unknown, believed, understood, whatever.

It might well illustrate a pathway towards examining a kind of fusion involving an ‘ethic of interdisciplinaryism’.  That is an idea encapsulated in the concept of something that might be understood as a ‘social brain’ of a kind.

By placing social imperatives at the heart of ‘historical understandings’ we might find a common ground of a kind upon which various fields of thinking – history, geography, cultural theory, anthropology, etc –  might profitably come together. Here we may have the opportunity to set a new agenda.

Our ‘social brains’ work in accord with deep as well as shallow histories towards it uniting experimental and historical sensibilities. A ‘musingplace’ might be a ‘place’ from which to launch such an endeavour as intimated here.

CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE 1
CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE 2 

CH Smith developer Errol Stewart hits out at Heritage Protection Society (Tasmania) president Lionell Morell

NOTE: The contention relative to this building just will not go away. Importantly a great deal of Launceston's history and heritage is located in the place.

The various development proposals that have failed have done so largely because of poor planning and Launceston's Aldermen will be judged in the future in regard to all this.

One or two have been unseemly in their willingness along the way to try an "hurry things up" and what they'll be remembered for is now in the lap of the GODS.

_________

From the Examiner: "CH Smith developer Errol Stewart has hit out at Heritage Protection Society (Tasmania) president Lionell Morell over comments made to the City of Launceston about the site’s development application. ............ In a representation to the council, Mr Morell advocated a condition to retain the existing structure at 22 Charles Street but the developers plan to convert the top two storeys into one level. ............ “The remaining structure of the old warehouse at No 22 has been recognised and required to be retained by previous adjudicated permits,” he said. ............ “From our site inspection with the owners/developers and the heritage advisers, the significance of the surviving interior of the old residence at No 24 was identified, and accordingly we submit that all internal walls and the layout be retained accordingly.” ............ Mr Stewart said the suggestion old permit recommendations should be maintained was disappointing. ............ “The suggestion that the approval, which was granted 22 years ago, should bind us is totally without foundation,” he said.(the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal) like all other eight representers are entitled to.” ............ Independent consultant planner Ashley Brook, from GHD, was engaged by the council to assess the application as the City of Launceston has a pecuniary interest in the development. ............ “The proposed works provide a reasonable balance between the preservation of the heritage buildings within the site and the practical realities of the proposed development,” he said. ............ The proposal put forward by developers Errol Stewart and Scott Curran would see the historic façades along Charles street restored. ............ The existing building closest to the Cimitiere Street intersection will be opened up on the lower two levels to accommodate a coffee shop with a floor area of 103msq. ............ A building extension to the rear of the 1860s Grain Store at 22 Charles Street and the 1938 CH Smith Wool Store at 20 Charles Street would be used as office space. ............ The proposed major extension at the rear of the buildings, also extending to the rear of 24 Charles Street, will be built over two levels above the ground level of a car park. ............ The 1830s Canal Street Warehouse, also known as the Cordial Factory or Supply River Store, would be retained and reused as a café or bar. ............ The plans include a large car park to be constructed over two levels to provide for both the private needs of the tenancies on the site as well as public parking. ............ The City of Launceston will vote on the development at its meeting on Monday. " ... Go to the source here – http://www.examiner.com.au/story/4418379/heritage-dispute-developing-over-ch-smith-pictures-videos/?cs=5312

RELATED STORIES: CH Smith plans go to council CH Smith plans unveiled by Errol Stewart and Scott Curran CH Smith timeline: revival efforts over 20 years Launceston City Council supports CH Smith car park plan Tasmanian Heritage Council green lights CH Smith site plans CH Smith site could be part of a major Launceston City Council development"

MEDIA RELEASE – 5 December 2016 Tasmania’s celebrated built heritage needs stronger protection under proposed planning scheme – National Trust

Freycinet Action Network
5 December 2016

Tasmania’s celebrated built heritage needs stronger protection 

under proposed planning scheme – National Trust

The Deputy Chair of the National Trust of Australia (Tasmania) Warwick Oakman has joined other stakeholder voices to raise concerns about changes to planning rules in Tasmania and the impact it could have on the preservation and setting of buildings in Tasmanian towns. Mr Oakman will address a public meeting on the planning reforms this Tuesday night in Launceston.

The National Trust is a community-based organisation responsible for the protection and presentation of historic heritage places. Since 1960 the Trust and its members have played a lead role advocating for the preservation of built heritage in Tasmania. It manages and opens to the public historic properties such as Runnymede in Hobart and Clarendon outside of Launceston. Mr Oakman has been involved with the management of the National Trust in Tasmania for the past 18 years.

“We are concerned about the small towns of Tasmania and how traditional, modest, sometimes internationally significant places and attendant rural landscape setting will be preserved under the proposed provisions of the new Tasmanian Planning Scheme,” said Mr Oakman.

“Unless planning has provisions to help protect unique and important heritage buildings and landscapes, it will have a permanent detrimental impact on Tasmania.”

Mr Oakman said the concerns were heightened with the impending removal of over 500 properties from the Tasmanian Heritage Register.

“The built cultural heritage landscape of Tasmania is of unique national and international character and needs strong protection under planning laws,” said Mr Oakman.

Mr Oakman will discuss the National Trust's concerns over the current proposed planning reforms at a public information night in Launceston on Tuesday, organised by over 20 community and environment groups.

7 - 9 pm, Tuesday 6th December
Pilgrim Uniting Church
34 Patterson Street, Launceston
Facebook Event Link: https://www.facebook.com/events/404963659894197/

OTHER SPEAKERS

Sophie Underwood – Founder of the Freycinet Action Network. Sophie will provide an overview, background, timelines and next steps of the proposed Tasmanian Planning Scheme.

Evan Boardman - Evan Boardman, Director of E3 Planning. Evan is a planning consultant and will be speaking about how the draft Tasmanian Planning Scheme will be taking away most of the protections for neighbourhood amenity and character with regards to views, privacy, sunlight into your backyard and home.

Todd Dudley – Director of the North East Bioregional Network will be speaking on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Tasmanian Planning Scheme.

All three political parties have been invited to attend and the Green’s Rosalie Woodruff will outline her party’s position, while a statement will be read from Labor’s Madeline Ogilvie, Shadow Minister for Local Government & Public Planning, who is an apology. Planning Minister Peter Gutwein has again declined an invitation to participate in the public meeting.