Sunday, 10 November 2019

THE GORGE HOTEL AND SHONKY DECISION MAKING EXPOSED


In Launceston, as the level of incompetence and the increasingly apparent complicity in shonky civic decision-making reveals itself, ratepayers, residents, and not to mention potential investors , are given more and more reasons to be concerned. Concerned about what?  Well the city’s future no less plus the prospect of looming increased rate demands. 

The Chamber of Commerce’s bleating becomes quite worrying when you get down to considering the level of incompetence on display. 'Investment' needs to be made in a stable  environment where planning principles and civic values and 'cultural landscapes' are respected and where the layering of ownerships are taken into account. 

Council and Councillors, and their functionaries, are in essence, representative 'placemakers'. What seems to be on display here is a deliberate and cynical addiction of any such a role.

Tardy one-dimensional thinking on this occasion has earned its just deserts around the umpire’s table. This should be a salutary lesson for all.

By way of illustration of bias and dysfunction, Councillors were contributors to the judging of the architectural competition that selected the particular 'design concept' for a development application. So it is reasonable to ask how could 'the Council' overcome this obvious bias when adjudicating on a design as the 'Planning Authority'? Moreover, having taken into account public representations lodged during the advertising period and the Council’s  expert planning officer's report, council's willingness to bend, and even rebend 'the rules' becomes all the more worrisome.

As for the council’s ‘paid experts’, well they have let both the project’s proponents down and the community they are paid to serve. This is the case at all levels, top to bottom, and the community has every right to expect better. Indeed the community has every right to be 'pissed off' in regard to what is now unfolding. 

The Tribunal’s decision is an indictment of the so called professional advice offered to the proponents is cause for alarm. Alarmingly. it alerts anyone looking for accountable competence in regard to planning, at least on this occasion, it is now a fact that it was not there. 

The tribunal's report is a salutary read and it should sound very loud alarm bells for any developer wanting to pull a swifty from here on in. That is unless they can in some way exert undue influence down at Town Hall – and yet again get the rules bent.

As for the Councillors, well they have apparently come up wanting on all fronts. Firstly, placing the most generous inflection upon the case, they just did not make themselves aware of the planning provisions and failed to challenge the advice they were offered – that’s what they’re paid for. 

Either that or collectively they were complicit in the attempt to distort the system for whatever reason. One day the jury will come in with a determination on that.

As for the so called ‘noisy minority’, well as it turns out they were right on the money and thus far the hapless disadvantaged neighbour has come out of all this somewhat vindicated – albeit that she will quite likely have another fight on her hands recovering her legal expenses. 

The very notion that communities should not be allowed to stand in the way of development is arrant nonsense. Likewise, the suggestion that unless you ‘have skin in the game’ you must stand aside while a developer is allowed to trash a cultural landscapes, and ignore a longish list of risks, is reprehensible rubbish undeserving of serious consideration. 

Again, council is found wanting given that councillors not knowing what they should have. A couple attempted to, pardon the pun, counsel the disadvantaged neighbour while trying to encourage her to back off an 'go away'. 

The hubris on display here, and the self-justified complacency, is way outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour – in other words it is shonky stuff. 

That all this might be reminiscent of Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s diabolical reign in Queensland – 1968 to 1987 – with all its political excess is both frightening and concerning. Yet council’s response stinks of it for those who remember Rafferty's Rules being played out in Queensland in real time and at the expense of anyone who got in the way. 

It is worth remembering that those years eventually brought on a Royal Commission.

Here in Launceston the political and bureaucratic excesses and the incompetencies are such that the appointment of a commissioner is called for to break the pattern of ongoing shonky behaviour. Bring it on!

Furthermore, in respect/regard for the Resource Management Planning and Appeals Tribunal, it is interesting observation that neither Council nor the project's proponent respect the independent, qualified adjudicator’s decision. Interestingly, Peter Dixon chairperson of this project's proponents' 'corporate entity' is now appealing Council’s almost unanimous refusal to approve his application to convert the Gunners Arms Bottleshop to a gym. Now that is something to ponder.

Against this kind of background, when the umpire has spoken and it is suggested that rules might be well changed it is indeed time for change, serious change, fundamental change. 

It must be time to see an end to budget overruns and 'snuggle-up deals' with developers, time to see accountability and transparency restored or put in place, time to see community standards upheld, time to re-examine what is ahead without the impediment of 'rule-benders' steering convenient pathways through political quagmire we have become all too used to.

+8
The only person who has expressed happiness over the decision was the appellant, Susie Cai and the Launceston Heritage Not Highrise group.
Tourism bodies, the Launceston Chamber of Commerce, the state government and the proponents all said they were disappointed by the result.
The appeal was upheld on height and compatibility, but not shadowing.
"This is a blow to business and investor confidence and puts a substantial $50M project for Launceston at risk which would create significant employment and other business opportunities for Launceston," he said.
Tourism Industry Council of Tasmania chief executive Luke Martin said Josef Chromy and the JAC Group had a vision for a truly outstanding hotel.
"I'm sure this is not the end of the project, but it will inevitably delay it," he said.
"We need a steady pipeline of new hotel investments in Tasmania to accommodate expected visitor growth, and ease the pressure on the residential market with demand for Airbnb style accommodation."
Mr Martin said the tourism body was increasingly concerned about the delays and barriers being applied on hotel developers, along with the time and cost applying to critical projects. He said the industry needs a robust planning system.
Most hotel developments in the state take about eight years from concept to opening, which Mr Martin said was too long and worrying.
Infrastructure Minister Michael Ferguson said the government respected the RMPAT had a job to do, but still supports the project.
"We wanted to see that go ahead, and we will be speaking with the proponent and the Launceston city council to see what the future might hold, because it's a good development for Launceston and the people want it," he said.
JAC Group's managing director said the tribunal found the neighbour's amenity would not be unreasonably affected by the overshadowing.
"The council voted 10 to one in favour of the hotel and it still has the power to support this landmark building if it wants to by way of a special area plan," Mr Cocker said.
"That would involve a scheme amendment to be determined by the Tasmanian Planning Commission."
Launceston Heritage Not Highrise coordinator Jim Collier said Ms Cai had fought a David and Goliath battle.
"Very vindicating for Susie's appeal given she's one of the little people who chose to take on a multi-million dollar company, and has come out on top," he said.
EXAMINER EDITORIAL .... It's not an easy road to get a new development approved in Tasmania.  Take the recent decision by the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal which, on Thursday, knocked back a significant proposal in the Josef Chromy Group's ambitious Gorge Hotel....... The tribunal has, in effect, upheld a height and noise complaint submitted by a small but vocal group of appellants, lead by one business owner........ While making its decision, the tribunal said the development did not meet the planning scheme's height guidelines and noted the impact of noise from a top-floor restaurant proposed for the hotel........ The decision is a disappointing one, not only for the proponents of the Gorge Hotel, developer Joseph Chromy but for the wider tourism community in Launceston........ The city's shortage of accommodation of all shapes and sizes has been well-documented, but the Gorge Hotel would have provided a new iconic building for tourists and locals to enjoy........ While it is a large building and, if it had been approved, would have been one of the largest in Launceston, but it is reminiscent of the large demand for accommodation in the city. Increasing capacity for tourists while also providing a place for locals to gather or dine would add further depth to our cultural scene........ The decision by the tribunal is an example of the tricky web of planning schemes and how the visual impact or economic benefit of development can not be taken into account when discussing and making a decision about an appeal........ The members of the tribunal, as well as the City of Launceston councillors (who approved the proposal), are somewhat hamstrung by the details presented to them in the proposal, which often provides a data-heavy snapshot........ Cultural, social or economic benefits, or otherwise, are not measured in planning decisions. Planning schemes and appeals have a role to play in the development application process but where do we draw the line on what constitutes planning and what constitutes progress for our city?.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)