Thursday, 22 December 2016

Getting A Big Heritage Tick In Launceston/Tasmania

CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE EXAMINER STORY

"Launceston’s infamous CH Smith site is a step closer to revival with the Tasmanian Heritage Council giving developers Errol Stewart and Scott Curran’s plans the tick of approval.

The pair discussed their vision with board members of the Heritage Council in Hobart on Wednesday.

“I understand that within about an hour they had called us to say that they had approved it, so they were pretty impressed with what we had presented,” Mr Stewart said.

“Now it’s back to Launceston City Council to make a determination, which I am pretty sure that they will do at the next council meeting, hopefully in the positive.”

The development application has been advertised for public comment and Mr Stewart said it had received a number of representations.

“At this stage approval has been given by the Heritage Council for our plans as presented, so now council will consider that at the next meeting and hopefully if they give us the green light then we will be good to go unless anybody takes us to appeal,” Mr Stewart said."

___________________________

EDITOR'S NOTE: To put this story into context it needs to be understood that representations to the Heritage Council and Launceston Council closed at the end of the day December 20 and the HeritageCouncil, according to this story, had made its decision before linch the very next day.

This seems both fast and hasty and it seems a fair question to ask, just how carefully has this body of decision makers considered ALL the submissions made to it? What submissions were made about what?

We might well consider this "R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy ([1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER Rep 233) is a leading English case on the impartiality and recusal of judges. It is famous for its precedence in establishing the principle that the mere appearance of bias is sufficient to overturn a judicial decision. It also brought into common parlance the oft-quoted aphorism "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done"

However in the current age of deeming that might well be a redundant concept or at least an idea that's adhered to 'somewhere else'! It couldn't have passed its use by date could it??