HOTEL DA – DA0127/2019. 123 Paterson Street LAUNCESTON

HERITAGE PROTECTION SOCIETY (TASMANIA) INC.

P.O. Box 513 Launceston Tasmania 7250

29 April 2019

Mr Michael Stretton

General Manager

Launceston City Council

Town Hall

St John Street

LAUNCESTON  TAS  7250

By email to contactus@launceston.tas.gov.au

Dear Sir,

Re:     DA0127/2019. 123 Paterson Street LAUNCESTON

Visitor Accommodation, Food Services, General Retail and Hire, Community Meeting and Entertainment, Sports and Recreation and Vehicle Parking – Construction of a hotel and mixed use development including signage, and consolidation of lots.

This application was advertised on Saturday 13 April 2019 and the advertising closes on 1 May 2019. In view of the Easter Holidays (19, 22 & 23) and Anzac Day Holiday (25), this leaves just 8 business days for enquiries to be made by potential representors, which we submit is not in accordance with the prescribed advertising provisions in LUPA Act.

Accordingly we submit that the advertising provisions have not been met in order to validate this application.

In any event, given the holiday period and the distractions commonly found during such a holiday period and where many people take advantage of taking extra days leave and compounding this into a longer break for family holidays away, it is an inappropriate time to properly seek public input into this important development application.

The ability and independence of Launceston City Council and its Councillors to independently act as a Planning Authority for consideration of this Development Application.

The concept design for this Development Application was prepared by CGB Architects from Melbourne, having successfully entered into a limited competition sponsored by the proponent JAC Group.

At Page 3 of the Introduction of this Planning Application prepared by GHD Ref. 1.1.2, it is admitted :

Each concept design was assessed in consultation with feedback from expert planners, landscape architects, engineers, service engineers, surveyors, builders, building surveyors, quantity surveyors, cost consultants, international hotel operators, Taswater, Council officers and Aldermen before first, second and third prize was awarded. The first prize was awarded to CBG Architects from Melbourne, which under the competition rules entitles them to prepare plans and elevations for the development application based on their concept design.

It is our submission that contrary to the proper provisions under which Aldermen (now called Councillors) are to consider for approval a Development Application as a Planning Authority, having been part of the process of the selection of a suitable design, and that design being the one that is this Development Application, they cannot now act impartially as a Planning Authority in arriving at a determination of the Development Application.

The present site comprises 3 Titles and this application seeks to amalgamate the Tiles but in 2 stages. It is unclear how this can be achieved or the implications on this Development Application as if considered without any amalgamation it is simply not possible to be assessed and ultimately constructed. The complexities arising from the existence of the Service Station on the corner of Margaret and Paterson Streets, presently on a separate Title and to remain so for possibly 19 years adds to this complexity and presents a significant hazard to the development of an Hotel and the operational safety of an Hotel if it is constructed. The Service Station is in fact a Liquid Fuel Depot and as such is potentially a very significant hazard . There are complex traffic and safety matters including traffic safety and traffic congestion that will exist should the service station and its hazardous products storage and decanting, be continued. It is unclear whether a Staged Development Approval is actually being sought and whether in view of the present subdivision of the land, if that is possible now, and whether any permit issued for what is described as the Stage 2 Development could remain a valid Permit until the present lease enjoyed by the Service Station operators expires or is ceased and then further extended for an unknown demolition and Stage 2 construction period.

It is our submission that the Service Station is a hostile use and an incompatible use to be allowed adjacent to an Hotel development, and that the Hotel development cannot safely or properly occur as planned, until the Service Station operation and use is ceased and the amalgamation of Titles described as Stage 2 is completed.

.

The proposed development land is significantly compromised by being held in 3 Titles, and these are burdened by several Right of Way Easements and Pipeline and Service Easements. It is unclear how practical or safe it will be to construct new buildings above the limited height Right Of Ways, particularly how users of the Right Of Way Easements will safely and conveniently access the Cataract Apartments Building during construction of an Hotel.

It is our submission that all subdivisions (amalgamations) and at least temporary diversions of Right of Ways be agreed with other users, before a Development Permit for an Hotel is considered.

The proponent argues variously, that the topography of the land somehow warrants a higher building that otherwise relative to surrounding (higher) land. The proponent also argues that prospect tenant/operators of the Hotel require a large building with ‘outstanding river and city views’. Conversely, the proponent then argues that this proposed development will be almost invisible, alleging that glass and steel and textured concrete will render it so.

The Launceston City Council commissioned report Launceston CBD Building Height and Massing Study by Paul Davies Pty Ltd released in 2018, specifically studied this potential development site, and concluded that the major portion be limited to constructions to a maximum height of 15m and the frontage to Brisbane Street be limited to 12m. This report was publicly presented at a Town Hall Public Information Session in 2018, and no-one in the audience gave any support that a maximum height beyond 14-15m be considered with the Launceston Central Study Area. Mr Davies presented copious evidence concerning the fact that there are very few “tall” buildings within Launceston that exceed 5 storeys in height, noting that through the central area and fringe commercial and warehousing areas, the predominant existing height is around 12 metres. Overall he cites that within his study area there is a consistent height of built forms between 9 and 15 metres. Of the taller contemporary buildings such as The Telstra Building, the Myer Building and Grand Chancellor Hotel, he said theses are NOT seen as desirable in terms of their contribution to the character of the city. He says “Launceston is not seen as a city of tall or large buildings but rather a unique collection of buildings of generally very consistent scale and form that sets Launceston apart from other cities in Australia. Scale and general homogeneity of form is one of Launceston’s greatest assets that sets it apart from other cities and adds to its desirability as a place to live and work.” Throughout his Report, he establishes without question the importance of views and vistas around the city, that are key to the character and liveability of the city, and draws attention to the deficiencies in the Planning Scheme for not protecting the extensive private views afforded by the siting of mainly residential developments on the hills that overlook the city. He particularly makes comment on how comparing one building height in one section of the city cannot be the means of setting a height limit that may in fact be appropriate in one location but would be less appropriate in another. Using a modus operandii that establishes the unique character of each quadrant or precinct of the city, he concluded on a particular recognition of the heritage and civic characters of Launceston in establishing his recommendations of particular height limitations for new building developments. He reported that the project brief gien to him by Launceston City Council was their desire to both protect the quality and character of the city for its heritage and liveability values and to facilitate development. Mr Davies does not support the notion of the adopting of a stepped or pyramidal form stepping back beyond the formal setback line for a site, preferring the adoption of built forms that are consistent with the pattern of development within the locality. Accordingly, he advises that “where no setback is indicated, that setback be a minimum of 15 metres so as to generally protect the scale and form of existing significant streetscapes so that any new built form in excess of 12 metres does not visually dominate views and vistas within streets and across the city”. Interestingly, Mr Davies does not support the amalgamation of Lots without careful consideration of controlling and limiting changes in the pattern of developments because of the outcomes where larger buildings not respectful of heritage and visual streetscape values would eventuate. In summary, Mr Davies expresses a detailed understanding of the character of the city and how this important quality must be preserved and enhanced with evaluating new developments.

Launceston City Council staff and Councillors will recall the privilege awarded the City by interest taken by international expert Professor Gehl. It would be respectful and beneficial in the assessment of this Development, for Professor Gehl to be invited to comment on the merits of what is proposed.

It is our submission that this proposed building is too high and that only because of the lower land form should it be permitted to be constructed to a maximum height of say 12m-15m, an increase on the usual maximum height prescribed by the Planning Scheme. We do not accept the contrary arguments presented by the proponent which appear to be so contrary to the prevailing situation as to appear to be ‘from another planet’. With great respect for the professional integrity of the consultants engaged by the proponent, it is very difficult to get beyond a feeling that these expert consultants are presenting ‘self serving’ opinions and assessments to accord with their commissions to support this application, touted in the Examiner Newspaper in late 2018 as being designed to dominate the landscape.

For some time, many residents of Launceston have been trying to reconcile high-rise development with protecting the amenity and heritage character of the central area.  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. It has been a long established planning principle in Australian cities, that it is symbolic of poor planning when taller buildings are constructed along river and water frontages. The principle of stepping down building heights towards these foreshore frontages is to be encouraged, however, in this instance, the contrary situation is evident.

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. Last year, and again even earlier, we called upon Launceston's planners to 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 have still not finalised Launceston's version of the Statewide Planning Scheme to rectify and complete the task, and only by formulating an understanding of place, can a sound foundation for the sustainable cultural heritage development of Launceston, 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 old 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 present height limit at around 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, the construction now under way for the highly-criticised 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". We were also concerned about another potential carbuncle approved a while back for 4-6 Boland Street, which in spite of the developer's undertakings was a serious development application that would progress to construction, was put on the market as a clear development site once the demolition of the old cottages was completed. It has now been announced that a 3-storey office building proposal will shortly be presented for approval, as the taller 16M high residential building, was not economically viable, after all.

Acute time constraints since 13 April 2019 when it was advertised, have simply not enabled an assessment of the car parking and traffic management parts of this Development Application. The application extends to well over 500 pages, and a mere 9 business days in one of the busiest holiday periods of the year is very inadequate to give the community a fair and reasonable time to do so. Interestingly, the Examiner Newspaper reported on December 2017, that the “application had been lodged on Thursday” Clearly the on-line file stating the application was received on 22 March 2019 is incorrect, but causes questions as to the transparency of the administrative processes by Launceston City Council. In any event, Council and its officers have had months to be making assessments of this proposal (since at least December 2018, if not much earlier when it was intimately involved with the competition process), yet the community is only given a mere 9 business days.

The proponent clearly expects that appeals against a Development Permit will be inevitable, given the references to previous determinations by RMPAT, the ‘Tribunal’. It may be a cynical view within the community, but it causes contemplation that Launceston City Council will not be seriously considering any representations it may receive, and ‘hand ball’ a final determination to the Tribunal, abrogating its duty under the LUPA Act and responsibility expected by its community to fairly deal with their concerns.

It is our submission that the car parking and traffic management provisions for this proposed development is woefully inadequate and completely fails to address the standards expressed in the Planning Scheme. Admission that the proponents wish to favourably rely on unrelated standards from jurisdictions in other States is a clear illustration of our cynicism in these regards. A full and proper parking assessment and honest evaluation of the traffic congestion issues and adequate management of the bottleneck that must inevitably arise, is required.

Environmental hazards and constraints have not been properly identified nor addressed by the proponent. The proposed development site is situated on a narrow seismic plate between to seismic fault lines (one running parallel beside the abutments of Paterson Bridge, immediately on the east side of Ritchies Mill along Bourke Street via Glen Dhu St and beyond the former Coates Patons building, and the other passing midway between Park and Margaret Streets and extending beyond the junction of Melbourne and Leslie Street in South Launceston. These particular fault lines are two of quite a number of faults crossing the Launceston area and accurately displayed on the Geological Survey of Launceston (part of the survey of Tasmania) conducted by Department of Mines, Tasmania Ref. 8315 S11 & 111 Zone 7 Sheet No. 39). This seismic plate has dropped approximately 300m from the adjoining Trevallyn plate, and then the next eastern plate has dropped approximately a further 300m. We interpret this as showing the development site being founded on a differing geological base of at least 300m compared to adjacent founding and with well-documented evidence of building damage having occurred in recent times (geologically speaking) along the course of Margaret Street. A copy of this reference is readily available and can be found in Council’s own files.

In 1965, as part of due diligence by engineers designing the Paterson Bridge, a Geophysical Survey of the bridge site was undertaken by the National Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics for the Commonwealth’s Department of National Development (Ref Record No. 1965/153), pinpointing the location of the western-side fault line crossing the South Esk River at a point about 35m downstream of the old Kings Bridge. The decision was made to particularly position the new bridge abutments on just one side of the fault line, so as to attempt as much as possible to minimise the risk of a structural collapse.

In 1990 and with historical awareness from earlier studies and seismic events, the then LCC City Engineer commissioned Dr Owen Ingles to carry out a seismic risk assessment for the Launceston Municipality, his report being submitted in March 1991. Ingles considered four risk factors from potential earthquakes: fault displacement; landslide/landslip; sediment liquefaction; and fill settlement. The more recent 2006 GHD study notes the presence of fill and the “potential for ongoing settlements” when undertaking an assessment of the stability of Launceston’s flod levee system.  

In December 1995, Dr Marion Leiba, Geologist, Geophysicist, Seismologist and much more, authored a report on behalf of Australian Geological Survey Organisation to Launceston City Council titled Survey and Seismic Microzonation, Launceston Tasmania. In this report, she pointed out that Launceston had been damaged by 5 earthquakes in the west Tasman Sea (1884, 1885, 1892, 1929 and 1946). The damage was thought to be caused by amplified earthquake shaking because of sediments and possibly other aspects of geology and topography in certain parts of Launceston. Consequently, zoning maps were prepared using microtremor measurements at 53 sites, a soils map by Steve Forsyth of Mineral Resources Tasmania, a gravity interpretation by David Leaman, and unpublished drillhole data.

These maps showed areas of Launceston where amplified earthquake shaking may occur because of the presence of underlying sediments.  Also resonance effects may increase the destructiveness of the earthquake. She explains in relation to the period of vibration of the ground, if matching that of a building above it, to be like a person pushing a swing higher and higher by matching the push to the moving swing. This resonance effect increases the likelihood of a building being damaged in an earthquake. She advises that one can lessen the chance of earthquake damage by avoiding erecting a building with a certain resonant period on a site with the same period.

Three groups of buildings were considered for the map: low rise (1-3 storeys), medium rise (4-9 storeys) and high rise (10+ storeys). Certain soil characteristics can give a more sophisticated method for computing the "period" of the building (when the natural 'period' of the ground matches the period of the building, probable maximum damage to the building occurs.

Seven zones on the building heights earthquake zoning map are:

ZONE 0. No resonance, but for other geological reasons, a response would be unknown.

ZONE 1-3  Possible resonance for 1-3 storeys (low rise buildings).

ZONE 1-5  Possible resonance for 1-5 storey buildings (a narrow NNW -SSE trending zone along the eastern side of the Tamar axis valley.

ZONE 1-9  Possible resonance for 1-9 storeys (low and medium rise buildings (Small zones on Windmill Hill and near Coronation Park).

ZONE ALL Possible resonance all buildings. (Tertiary sediment areas and in particular NE part of the North Esk axis and floodplain.....

ZONE 4+  Possible resonance for 4 or more storeys (high rise) buildings - mainly deep sediment fill in the Tamar and North Esk axis valleys and the Norwood area. Also  on shallow floodplain sediments, including most of the old railyards......what a wonderful choice as the site for a new University....

ZONE 10+  Possible resonance for 10 or more stories (high rise) buildings - from gravity and soils map, to the east of the old rail yards.

The ongoing studies and assessments of various works and reports by Dr Ingles warned against building structures in Launceston higher than 4 storeys.

It is our submission that the assessment of the environmental hazards and constraints for the proposed development site has not been adequately investigated nor has the associated risk of the Paterson St earth levee being breached by the combination of rising sea and silt levels (most recent advice to LCC is that even the newly reconstructed levees are now only 1:100 yr not 1: 200 yr as proclaimed at the end of the reconstruction project in 2017) and the potential for a seismic event destabilising the levee as well as the proposed building, sufficient to potentially cause great public risk, notwithstanding potentially damaging the proposed structure itself.

A proper reassessment of environmental hazards and constraints for this development site is warranted.

Other concerns yet to be adequately addressed, includes the impact of wind patterns and factors for a tall building in this particular location and what hazard the ‘tessellated’ glass and steel panels will have on local birdlife. Council should recall the concerns for the welfare of the protected Swift Parrot when it developed Launceston Aquatic and the measures to install special films on that glazing in an effort to stop the parrots crashing into the glass (this has occurred).

It is our submission that insufficient investigation has been done on the impacts of a tall reflective building in this location and the potential impacts on birdlife (in this case it has been reportedly observed as the domain of the protected eagle).

Summation.

This Development Application, in spite of its voluminous content, does not adequately address all necessary impacts, and accordingly is not suitable for adequate assessment for approval.

Until all information and assessment is made publicly available, no Development Approval for what is proposed should progress.

Yours faithfully

  

Lionel J. Morrell

For and on behalf of

Heritage Protection Society (Tasmania) Inc.