PLANNING MEDIA RELEASE

 

You can also download the media release pdf version here.

An Interim Planning Directive unilaterally imposed by Planning Minister Roger Jaensch without any consultation with the community, Councils and professional planners, will radically change planning standards with regards to residential developments.  This will impact the liveability of our cities, towns and suburbs and undermine the promised roll out of the state-wide planning scheme.

On 10^th February 2021, Minister Jaensch issued Interim Planning Directive No. 4 – Exemptions, Application Requirements, Special Provisions and Zone Provisions, a directive that comes into effect today, blindsiding professional planners, councils and community advocates for better planning in Tasmania.
 
“Peter Gutwein, as the Minister who bought in the state-wide scheme, always lead us to believe that we would be able to protect local character through each Council’s Local Provisions Schedules but this directive undermines that commitment by circumventing the local process”, said Sophie Underwood, spokesperson for Planning Matters Alliance Tasmania (PMAT).
 
The planning directive also affects local residential standards including:

• No maximum limit on impervious surfaces (concrete or roof space) leading to increased potential flooding issues and hotter living environments;
• No requirement for sunlight into habitable rooms or gardens;
• Bigger sheds allowed with no permit required; and
• Removal of rear boundary setbacks impacting privacy and shadowing.

“We’ve always said planning scheme changes will lead to a loss of local character and an increase in conflict amongst neighbours but this directive will accentuate these issues and take them to another level.

 “Land use planning rules govern how our communities look and how we interact and they need review and strengthening. Instead they are being weakened by unilateral government decisions that weaken protections and do not meet community expectations.

“As Tasmania’s post COVID appeal leads to population growth and massive pressure on coastlines and peri-urban areas we should be taking steps to protect the things that make Tasmania special. This directive does the exact opposite.

“This directive circumvents the Local Provision Schedule process, where local councils work with the community to establish planning rules to protect natural and cultural values and local character. While that process was promised as a means to involve community and protect local values, it appears to have been abandoned by government.

For Comment
Anne Harrison - State President - PMAT - 0419585291
Sophie Underwood - State Coordinator - PMAT - 0407501999

PMAT was awarded the 2020 Planning Champion prize at the national Planning Institute of Australia awards. This national award recognises non-planners for their advocacy or for making a significant contribution and lasting presence to the urban and regional environment.

You can also download the media release pdf version here. 
 

Kind regards,

Sophie

Sophie Underwood
PMAT State Coordinator
www.planningmatterstas.org.au/donate
sophie_underwood@hotmail.com

Two letters with a bit of sting in their tail.

 Letters to the editor | February 22, 2021

BEGINNING OF THE END?

 

IN THE 20 years that I've walked around Heritage Forest Park, I have seen more trees cut down than ever planted.

 

Any trees that are planted are rarely looked after and most die through neglect or being accidentally sprayed with Roundup.

 

Management of this park is a disgrace. [And it is so, so true]

 

There are cities around the world who boast of having a large park in their midst, the Domain in Sydney, Hyde Park in London or Central Park in America.

 

They take pride in their trees.

 

This park is being continually chipped away (literally). Our council takes the attitude that the park is there for its convenience, whether to extend the grounds of the sports facilities (can't let trees get in the way of sport), or an extended car park (can't let trees get in the way of cars) or because some trees are in the way of a dog club that hangs out there every weekend.

 

Why is the dog club allowed to build and operate a business in the park anyway? [And what would the councillors care or even be interested in calling management to account ... Why are they there?]

 

Does the council actually have a plan? [And that is a good question!]

 

Or is it going to keep on taking more and more land as it sees fit.

 

This park has trees that can boast being older than the council that looks after it.

 

I see a great big "X" being put in front of the sign Heritage Park Forest.

 

Jane Whyte, Invermay.

 

ABORIGINAL APOLOGY

 

THE Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery and the Royal Society of Tasmania have apologised and now you need to follow through Mr Gutwein and apologise to our community for the government policies that have oppressed and traumatised our people for generations since colonisation.

 

It's your responsibility as Premier to address and apologise for these past actions.

 

The state government also need to follow through and fund a cultural centre and return our objects from these institutions to allow us to reconnect to them and tell our stories from our perspective.

 

You might then go down in history as the gutsy Gutwein government. 

 

Fiona Maher, truwana rangers, Cape Barren Island.

 

Local government has a role here too and is so, so, reluctant to step up to the plate. It is pity that all we’ll see is explanations as to just how inappropriate it is right up until it really needs to be done.

 

Tandra Vale

THE TMAG'S AND THE ROYAL SOCIETY'S APOLOGY IN CONTEXT

It has become quite clear that the context of the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery's in concert with the Royal Society's 'apology' is being misunderstood as 'their apology'.  Indeed, I’m finding that generally ‘the political class’, of all complexions and most machinations, are disinclined to publicly articulate their support or otherwise and ‘politically’ in Tasmania that tells us something – in fact quite a lot. 

Launceston’s mayor’s disinclination to ‘endorse’ it is diminishing and many Launcestonians are  quite embarrassed by his stance – and especially so when in communicating with ‘cultural thinkers’ Australia wide.

As for the TMAG’s apology, commenting as a ‘cultural theorist’, rather than being “theirs” – as Launceston's Mayor asserts and other say also –  it is, arguably, ‘in fact ours’ given that the ‘institution’ is ours, and is there to reflect our values, as a public institution reliant upon the ‘public purse’. Similarly, the State’s Governor, by convention, and process, is:

• The TMAG’s patron and thus the institution ‘enjoys’ her patronage; and thus
• The Governor is the ‘officer bearer’ who presides over ‘Executive Council Secretariat’; and
• Who thus approves the appointment of, and where appropriate the dismissal/replacement of, TMAG ‘Trustee’ – all somewhat at arm’s length; and in turn
• All this by extension makes ‘the apology’ as much ‘the community’s’ as it is ‘the institutions’.

Therefore, and arguably, the TMAG doesn’t speak for itself, rather it speaks for, and hopefully with, its ‘community’. – and at arm’s length from government. I think here that ‘community’ is best understood as its ‘Community of Ownership and Interest’ – researchers, scholars, donors, taxpayers, visitors, sponsors etc. etc.  See this link 

 

Moreover, the TMAG, is accountable to us, and held so by the ‘Auditor General’ quite independently of political government. By extension this means ‘the office’ brings its understandings of ‘accountability’ to bear on our behalf – that is our cultural sensibilities and sensitivities etc. Indeed, the previous Auditor General did all that not so long ago. On that occasion, the then Chairman of the Trustees, Sir Guy Green, ‘stood down’, the board was replaced and the institution’s ‘accountability’ was asserted/reasserted – See this link 

 

This in part, in so much as ‘the press’ understands such things, goes some way towards understanding the national attention the apology got, and will most likely continue to get, and in context albeit not that well understood in that way. The press’s lack of understanding is another issue. There is a growing number of apologies that have entered the 'public discourse' and this is no bad thing.

 

Nonetheless, this does underline the significance of the apology – and by extension political recalcitrance when point blank refusal to ‘endorse’ and articulate the significance of it all becomes evident.

 

As for the Royal Society, this organisation has traditionally operated in locked step with the TMAG as an institution, again under the governor’s patronage. Typically, its membership is represented/included, by convention, on the TMAG Trustees along with other appropriate ‘appointees’ – basically at the governor’s instigation. It is somewhat unclear if this is currently so but the joint apology seems to indicate so.

In Tasmania, given the State’s histories, and the level of contention plus the misunderstandings attached, it seems clear that there is a political imperative to distance ‘the debate’ from the ‘political arena’ albeit that in the end, it cannot be. ‘Deliberation’ would be a whole lot more helpful but there we go – that is the state of politics currently. However, please do not expect cultural thinkers and advocates to look away in either a cultural context or in any other way.

 

At his point, there is possibly a need to apologise for this ‘missive'  being a rather  ‘preachy essay’ but the points that need to be made cannot be in any other way – and hopefully to a willing listeners. Goodness knows there are rather a lot of ‘not bloody interested, let’s not go there, thank you’ brigade out and about now as there has been for all to long.

 

Why do I raise this issue now?

• Firstly, as researcher it informs my critical inquiry;
• Secondly, I have more than a passing interest in the political discourse in Tasmania and nationally;
• Thirdly, some 'politicians' clearly find the whole issue just too contentious to engage in any kind of contextual deliberation; and
• Fourthly, I am totally disenchanted with some 'political players' total disinclination to engage with the class of ‘cultural discourse’ required here or indeed anything related to ‘participatory democracy’;
• Fifthly, I’ve been engaged in attempting to lift the QVMAG out of the cultural quagmire the Council has buried it in for over 25 years; and
• Sixthly, in the hope that, given the QVMAG, as a regional institution, might now find someone to bring perspective, politically at least, to debates and deliberations relative to cultural institutions ‘accountability’.
• AND lastly, in the hope that I might find an advocate somewhere to advocate for meaningful change in ‘Tasmania’s House of Review’ via its membership.

 

So, there are my cards on the table for all to see!

 

For some context regarding ‘the return of the petroglyphs’, this link here may be of some interest.

 

Again, I’m sorry for this somewhat rather long and tedious post but under the circumstances in the here and now the case needs to be put in a fulsome way rather than in a truncated manner with important points missing. 

Ray Norman Feb 2021

 

MEDIA RELEASE: PETROGLYPH APOLOGY FEB 15

CLICK HERE TO GO TO ABC SOURCE STORY

TODAY is a very significant day in Tasmania. It is a day when the depth and dimension of the island's histories has reached a new point with the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery(TMAG) in concert with the Royal Society of Tasmania publicly apologising to Aboriginal people.

The hope that underlines the apology is that it will be followed with attitudinal change and continued consultation with Aboriginal Tasmanians is, hopefully, a very significant turning point in Tasmania.

Aboriginal leader Michael Mansell, has said there was a "real trade in the Aboriginal dead being sent to the mainland of Australia and to good old Mother England".(ABC News: Laura Beavis). 

Elsewhere, Michael Mansel has said "It was only after that – [receiving some federal funding in the 1970s under Gough Whitlam ] –we could bring the simmering of Aboriginal resentment against white people and what white people had done against us into a political movement."

So, today's apology will no doubt go down the State's historic record as a day of reconciliation that has, up to now, seemed somewhat out of reach. Moreover, it goes beyond the contentious 'theft and appropriation' of the Preminghana petroglyphs.

The City of Launceston's Mayor apologised to the Tasmanian Aboriginal community during NAIDOC Week 2020 and somewhat sadly Council has thus chosen not to endorse the TMAG's and the Royal Society's apology today.

Notably, Launceston's Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery (QVMAG) – Australia's largest regional art gallery and museum – has been front and centre in the appropriation and 'theft' of the Preminghana petroglyphs and quite possibly well before the TMAG became involved.

Michael Mansell has not been alone in his advocation for the return of the petroglyphs. Peter C. Sims, an independent Launceston based researcher, now living away from the city, has been a tireless advocate. His recent monograph, "Tasmanian Aboriginal Rock Art PREMINGHANA (Mount Cameron West) 2020" catalogues his research and advocacy.

The University of Tasmania's Prof. Greg Lehman, on the ABC today, has eloquently and poignantly contextualised today's apology.

Launceston in the past prided itself in leading on issues such as this, albeit that like elsewhere in the colonial aftermath, its institutions have erred. In the light of the city's emerging, and ever evolving, 'Cultural Strategy' the city sadly seems to be distancing itself from today's apology and disinclined to endorse to it.

Nonetheless, The Launceston Concerned Citizens Network wholeheartedly endorses today's apology and looks forward to an attitudinal change and continued consultation going forward.

For more information see – https://tasmanianantipodeanelginmarbles.blogspot.com/

ACCOUNTABILITY: Just what does it take to get some?

There are a quite a few questions hanging out there that need to be answered. The first of course is why neither Launceston's  Mayor, or the city's  GM/CEO, could not answer this question in open council Thursday Feb 10 2021 when the cheque in question was drawn July 9 2020? By extension, if the councillors didn't know that a cheque for $1.2 Million had been drawn nor the circumstances in which it was, why didn't they? It seems quite apparent that they have been kept in the dark, some at least, and why might that be so?

The really big question that cannot be answered at Launceston's Town Hall is just what do you have to do in Launceston before the State Government will step in on behalf of the city's constituents and hold someone to account for apparently irregular behaviour? If ratepayers, and indeed the State's taxpayers as well, cannot rely upon 'the government' to protect their interests just where can they go?

If you GOOGLE 'Tasmanian council sacked' you will find the government looking into 'council performance and accountability' and it seems that the City of Launceston Council is, in the vernacular, TEFLON COATED and able to escape any kind of serious integrity test. Code of Conduct complaints finish up costing ratepayers dollars better spent on amenity infrastructure, albeit that it will as likely as not be required to cover overruns or something similar.

It is quite concerning when a councillor requests financial information, and in open council, they are denied access time after time. It is just the case that the GM/CEO has extraordinary powers under the Local Government Act that, in effect. render elections pointless when they are applied in the extreme – and they are regularly in Launceston. 

If you cannot pay your rates 'the Council' will come down on you like a ton of bricks. If you overstay your time on a parking metre, 'the Council', revenue hungry as Town Hall is, will penalised you to the maximum. Yet, Council and Councillors appear to 'get out gaol free' at every turn and even the press lets them of the hook. Why might that be?

In Queensland Councillors were held to account and the government  updated its laws to protect local government constituents from the excesses of delinquent councillors and councils. What needs to happen in Tasmania before 'the government' starts to take a really serious look at Launceston City Council's performance, accountability and integrity? Likewise, what signals does a council need to put out there before the Auditor General steps up to protect ratepayers and residents, the business community and the amenity of place from bureaucratic excess?

These are questions that are regularly asked by City of Launceston constituents amongst themselves and sometimes of 'government'. Such pleadings seem bound to fall upon deaf ears but surely one day someone for some reason will hear them – hope springs eternal.

“Something has to be heard to be ignored. He heard me this time, 

and he ignored me.” ― H.G. Parry, The Unlikely Escape of Uriah Heep

WHO KNOWS WHAT ABOUT THE CITY OF LAUNCESTON'S MONEY BUSINESS?

A reply is being awaited with considerable interest!!

 

All but 2 of Launceston's Councillors and the GM are seriously out to Lunch and who knows who is picking up the tab and for why??

The council endorsed the UTAS Stadium Draft Future Direction Plan at its meeting on Thursday afternoon. The plans look at the stadium's future to transform it to a year-round venue, meet growing demands and provide more indoor sporting facilities in the region. 

IN OTHER NEWS:

 • Errol's $4m proposal to overhaul Seaport precinct 

• 'Heartbreaking': Adams Distillery owner vows to rebuild 

• Premier disputes whether rents are 'out of control' in Tasmania 

• 'He's a fantastic captain': Taylor's growth impresses coach 

It proposes achieving this by upgrading the stadium and adding a new sporting and entertainment facility. The council will still need to develop a final plan and approve it, conduct extensive stakeholder and community consultation, secure funding and strike a deal on a new ownership model before ground can be broken on the site. All but two councillors voted in support of the draft plans. Cr Paul Spencer, who abstained, said the money would be better spent on the Launceston General Hospital and the kanamaluka/Tamar River. ...........................Cr Tim Walker who voted against it, said he was concerned the council would be limiting itself to lobbying to one major project from the state government, and limiting its ability to lobby for others such as affordable housing. The proposed redevelopment of the stadium will cost an estimated $109 million to increase the stadium's seating to 24,112. It will redevelop the eastern and northern stand to include a retractable lower level to create a rectangular field if needed and redeveloping the southern stand to link to the sport and entertainment facility. 

RELATED: 

On the street: what Launceston thinks of the proposed $208m UTAS Stadium upgrades 

It will also feature high-performance training, recovery, admin, education and research facilities to support athletes, with a primary focus on AFL. Alongside commercial opportunities to activate the area, such as health businesses, cafes and shops. ...........................A new $99 million indoor entertainment and sporting facility is also proposed for the Old Bike Track site by the southern end of the stadium on Invermay Road. 

RELATED: New $208m vision for UTAS Stadium revealed .

It will feature three indoor courts - capable of hosting a range of sports including basketball, futsal and netball - and indoor training and recovery spaces. ...........................It will feature three indoor courts - capable of hosting a range of sports including basketball, futsal and netball - and indoor training and recovery spaces. Alongside a show court made possible by retractable seating to accommodate up to 5000 people for concerts, exhibitions/conferences and higher level basketball matches, netball and other sporting events.

CONCERNED CITIZENS PAY UP TO SPEAK UP

 

WHITEhelepantz ON THE RAMPAGE AT LONNY'S TOWN HALL AGAIN

Just how many more bureaucratic WHITEhelepantz does this town really need to keep the developers, tradies et al happy and laughing all the way to the bank with taxpayers’ and ratepayers’ HARDearned in their pockets and over stuffed PIGGYbankz. 

Who remembers the promise of The SILVERdome? 

To be sure it will not be UTas who do not 

PAY RATES that’ll be maintaining this fiscalFOLLY! 

 

WHAT ABOUT THIS MONEY BEING SPENT, 

if it is actually there, on the aftermath of COVID 

or actually doing something about 

THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY 

or getting on with 

THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY 

On the evidence, someone at TOWN HALL 

is seriously OUT TO LUNCH at the 

rate/taxpayers’ expense 

 It is way past time for a 

REALITY CHECK! 

Big questions! 

What’s in it for who? 

Where is the business case?