DEVELOPMENT: So Many Question So few Answers So Far!

Foreword: The apparent impending development of Launceston's now derelict heritage site, "The C H Smith Building" will without doubt be welcomed by Launcestonians. A great deal of the city's colonial and post-colonial heritage and histories is invested in this piece of the city's geography. Likewise, a great many Launcestonians, in Tasmania and elsewhere, have significant aspects of their social histories and cultural understandings in some way invested in, and linked to, this site. 

Launcestonians' attachment to this site is loaded and this is often overlooked by 'recent arrivals' with their personal histories and cultural realities located 'elsewhere'. Its all too easy to overlook social and cultural attachments to 'place' but in the end they are there and they variously affect people's lives – socially, culturally and as often as not economically. So, what happens to, and on, this site is non-trivial despite the imperatives of 'blow-in pragmatism'.

The story behind the fabric of the building is a significant part of the  Launceston story and indeed the Tasmania story. The site’s Canal Street warehouse represents and reflects Launceston’s development from a colonial maritime port to the present.

C H Smith established a successful trading company that was known as one of Launceston's and Tasmania's key mercantile traders from the mid 19th century to the early 20th century. The company was carried on by his sons after his death in 1904. Mr Smith was not the only businessman to utilise the site though, with one of Launceston's early breweries believed to have used the Canal Street warehouse. The 1830s warehouse was said to have been part of the Tamar Brewery, started by John Griffiths and his son-in-law John Scott in 1855, and is now one of Launceston’s oldest surviving buildings.

The is no doubt that this site will carry the 'Launceston story' with it well into the future whatever the current development proposal brings with it. It is just the case tat the wider community, as investors in the city's heritage and histories, have an interest in and a need to be part of the decision making process.

Ex-alderman Basil Fitch said today "Launceston people must be a part of the decision making equation rather than being politically and bureaucratically sidelined as it appears there is currently a danger of them being. More to the point the politicians and aldermen must be accountable and held to account."

That said, the apparent 'Christmas present to Launceston' is welcomed albeit that there is more than a hint of 'Indian Giving' about the proposal. It is just the case that development cannot be regarded as being necessary at any price.

Click above to enlarge

RANDOM EXAMINER COVERAGE OF THE SITE: 
•  [10 Nov 2016 ] – [20 Aug 2016, ] 
•  [10 Nov 2016 ] 
•  [1] – [2]  – [3]  – [4] – [5] 
•  [7] – [8] – [9] – [10] – [11]






ON THE AGENDA AT MONDAY NOVEMBER 28th 2016 COUNCIL MEETING    [LINK]

The Recommendation 

“To determine a proposal seeking a $9m interest free advance for a period of five years to fund the construction of 300 public car parks on the CH Smith site, subject to certain guarantees.“ 

When a development proposal turns up for a site loaded with contention there are bound to be questions. When it happens on the cusp of Christmas when everyone is preparing to go away, forget the world for a while, think about other things and so on, additional questions pop into mind – rightly or wrongly. 

At the very least all this exercising minds about processes and the various levels of ‘appropriateness’ invested in and embodied in the proposal and 'the process'. 

When the process goes public with a sense of urgency and with the minimum of detail at such a time wonderment is ever likely. If there is a hint that objectors might be admonished and ridiculed if they wish to make a contribution to any kind of consultation or debate, its worrying. If people’s concerns, no matter how genuine and well-founded their they may be, are downplayed this too is worrying. If representations are “taken into consideration and noted” that’s always worrisome. If timing and circumstance make good use of hiding behind administrative processes and “commercial in confidence”, embargoes, etc. even when there is public money involved that too is worrisome.

The big question is ever likely to be who paying whom for what? Then there others that flow on from it. Questions like:
• Where is the Master Plan and what is its purpose? 
• How does ‘the proposal’ fit the plan? 
• Who framed the plan, when and under what circumstances?
• What is the imperative/s driving the proposal, how were they determined and by whom?
• In what way does the process in play take account of the issues of accountability and the integrity of governance?
• Who is going to repay the loan and by what means?
• How many additional parking places for the City of Launceston does this proposal deliver if realised?
• What income will be generated for the City of Launceston as a direct consequence of this proposal?
• What account is being paid to the fact that something in the order of 50% of the city's ratepayers and residents are in receipt of some form of social security and what costs and benefits will flow to them/
• What benefits are intended to flow to what groups of residents and ratepayers plus how will they benefit as a consequence and how will this be articulated to them?
• When will plans for the proposal be made public and by what mechanisms – eg. public display, Internet, etc.
• What is the anticipated timeframe for the 'approval process' and what form of community consultation will be initiated as a part of the approval process?
• Where, and when, will the proposed ownerships of the the development site be articulated given the ultimate ratepayer investment in the project?
• What will the direct economic impact and benefits of the development be in the Tamar region and how will they be measured?
• What environmental and social impacts are being anticipated for development and how is anticipated that they will be realised and/or mitigated  – eg, storm water management, traffic movements, etc?  

Apart from these questions other will surely arise as the development and the approval processes proceed. It can only be hoped that the process will be timely and one that meets the Minister's "Good Governance Guide 2016" – LINK