CULTURE IN LAUNCESTON AND THE 'STRETTON PLAN'

Thinking people in the QVMAG's Community of Ownership & Interest (COI) are deservedly in utter dismay in regard to council’s apparent abdication of the trust invested in you as the default governors/trustees of the QVMAG and its collections.

It is also a matter of dismay that in the Council and Councillors in their collective capacities as the default trustees, on the available evidence, you have collectively:

• Abdicated their governance role, function and obligations relative to the QVMAG as a public cultural institution and community cultural asset;
 • Allowed the council's operational  management to be essentially self-referential, self-assessing and by-and-large self-serving;

• Allowed the operation to function without critical oversight – councillor's in particular – and critical review thus rendering it 'functionally unaccountable' to those who fund its operation and support its recurrent budget and collection building – the city’s ratepayers, the State’s taxpayers, donors and sponsors, et al.

 • Allowed the operation to function without meeting credible reporting standards to its governance – the Councillors –thus opening it to unwelcome speculation;

• Allowed the operation to function largely without being exposed to independent external expertise and peer review thus limiting its professional standing; 

• Allowed council management to commission expert advice at significant expense to ratepayers and consequently disallowed any kind of public access to it, again opening the operation up to unwelcome speculation and functionally reinforcing its opacity;

• Allowed the operation’s management to blur and amalgamate the functions of 'governance and management' thus allowing for rudderlessness and discretionary accountability that places both the institution and its collections at risk;

 • Allowed the operation’s management to determine self-serving strategic priorities – the function of governance not management – in isolation and insulated from meaningful criticism and critique;

• Supported the notion that as a council that as the QVMAG’s governors – representing the institutions constituency –  the notion of 'conscripting funds from ratepayers', and without open disclosure, for the recurrent cost of the QVMAG operation is viable, ethical and morally sustainable. Moreover, that 'Council' does so without providing access to credible fiscal reporting or indeed any kind of meaningful access to critical review. This is fundamentally untenable;

• Allowed the operation to dispose of assets without credible public or appropriate oversight. And  Council/Trustees also support an accession and deaccession policy that is far removed from ‘best practice’. This too is fundamentally untenable;

• Allowed the operation to acquire collection material, and/or dispose of it, without appropriate independent oversighting or indeed any meaningful reference to them as ‘trustees’ – trust invested in them by ratepayers, taxpayers, donors, et al; and

• Allowed the operation to function without credible and measurable performance indicators.

Moreover, against this concerning background there are reports that ‘Council’ is entertaining a notion that the State Govt. might take over, or fully fund, the operation thus saving ‘Council’ the obligations that as 'Trustees' they have collectively renounced already essentially.

It would be extraordinary for any funding institution to fund an institution such as the QVMAG – government, corporate or other – given the operation’s:

• Record of discretionary accountability; and
• That the operation has – reportedly and recently –  been essentially been restructured to maintain and basically to  reinforce the status quo.

The notion that the QVMAGI is to be "overhauled under the [Stretton Plan], with Mr Stretton saying the council is too small to cater for the asset's future. ... The future success of both of these vitally important institutions may require new arrangements which cannot necessarily be provided by remaining part of a local government organisation," and he said all this in Mid-August. It turns out that this is nothing more than hollow rhetoric. There has been nothing canvassed in Council, no meaningful engagement with the QVMAG's COI, not the slightest hint of 'community engagement'.

It is particularly disturbing that the city’s recent AGM, the Councillors/Trustees collectively, had nothing to say about future plans and aspirations for the QVMAG as an operation. Not a mention, let alone open up any kind of critical discourse relevant to the operation and its relevance – socially, culturally and economically. 

You would be aware that a ‘network of concerned citizens’ has facilitated a review of the QVMAG’s Annual Report – See https://qvmag20182019.blogspot.com/

. 

That as the operation’s ‘governing body’ as Trustees, Council/Councillors THEY not openly responded to either the QVMAG’s Annual Report or the ‘citizen’s review’ is a clear and unambiguous demonstration of their disinterest and abdication. They must act immediately to turn this institution into a 21st C operation that is trustworthy and accountable.

All this said, it needs to be acknowledged that arguably the QVMAG is one of the region’s most significant cultural assets – especially so in regard to cultural tourism. The support the institution receives from Launceston’s ratepayers is justifiable just so long as the operation delivers commensurate dividends – social, cultural & economic – and it is truly accountable to its constituency in a 21^st C context. Indeed, given appropriate governance, such ongoing support would be justifiable.

The somewhat arrogant silence coming from the QVMAG’s ‘Trustees’, City of Launceston Councillors must not be overlooked. They must be held to account and required to act immediately as they have abused the trust invested in them. Not soon, not when this or that has been done, right now please, the time for dilly dallying about is well and truly over! 

It is time for the QVMAG's Community of Ownership & Interest (COI) to be engaged with rather the background of ongoing sidelining that the 'STRETTON PLAN ' has put in place.

CLICK HERE TO ACCESS –  https://qvmag20182019.blogspot.com/

CLICK HERE TO ACCESsS THE STRETTON PLAN DISCUSSED  https://lcc63.blogspot.com/p/v-behaviorurldefaultvmlo_20.html

City of Launceston in Review 2019 and THE STRETTON PLAN

Launceston rounds the year off  ingloriously. Town Hall has been reconfiguring 'the operation' and for the most part doing its very best to blur the differences between governance and  management. This is the stuff public public administration 101 yet it seems to be not well understood at Town Hall. 

Or, perhaps it has been understood that opportunity was knocking and it was time to harvest the 'benefits' laying about waiting to be exploited. All this, and sadly, is an open question.

On the face of it, the City's Councillors, the elected representatives, have dropped the ball and they are napping on the sidelines while the 'functionaries' persuade them that they have no real authority anyway. Or, they have been sidelined and sadly, yet again all this is an open question. They seem happy enough just so long as their stipends are paid on time.

In fact the functionaries are by-and-large operating on their own terms, in their own way and anytime the mood takes them. SECTION 62 of the Act affords the GM extraordinary powers that on careful reading he and his predecessors have misused. If we need evidence for this, always remembering that it is 'the holiday season', we might well look at the so-called 'organisational realignment' that has concentrated 'authority' where management wants it – and apparently in camera. Likewise, there is a disinclination to include the 'elected representatives'  in the equation and the development of the strategies being implemented.

All this represents a total misunderstanding of the relative functions of 'management and governance'. Management does not determine policy and strategic directions rather it is managements role to implement them. Management has absolutely no role in determining policy and strategies – except perhaps to  undertaking research and reporting outcomes to governance. 

Town Hall's management is, on the evidence busily overstepping the mark.

From the scant information coming out of Town Hall's 'media machine' operating with overly generous budget provided by ratepayers, we are beginning to see hints of who the winners and losers are. Apparently the GM/CEO/whoever has providerd something like $480K for this sort of thing in the budget – and the good Councillors looked the other way by-and-large. As always the ratepayers will be footing the bill, and big time.

Tasmania has drained the 'gene pool' in regard to credible candidates to fill the seats on its 29 Councils. Disturbingly, this also seems to apply to 'capable functionaries' able and willing to deliver a public service in Local Govt. 

This is a serious concern and worryingly when it comes to empowering 'officers' with 'delegated authorities'. For context click here. 

There is much work to be done in regard to transparency and accountability. On the evidence, the City of Launceston apparently has regarded the Act relevant to providing access to the 'Register of delegated Authorities' as elastic and something that can be done at the GM's convenience. 

Alternatively, Hobart's council is setting the pace and thus far has set the 'GOLD STANDARD'. Arguably there is a way to go yet but if you haven't set out on the journey you will not reach the destination.

As for Launceston's so-called 'Organisational Realignment' it turns out that the process is as shonky as – questionable redundancy processes, questionable accountability, questionable transparency and towards entrenching questionable standards. 

What is now euphemistically referred to as "THE STRETTON PLAN" will more than likely go down in history as one of the city's most cynical self-serving examples of shonky administration. It has been perpetrated in the dark and largely devised to divert attention away from serial budget over runs and probably much more.

Only an independent enquiry would have any chance of plumbing the depths of malfunction and dodgyness this exercise encapsulates.

Will the Minister countenance anything like this? We'll just have to wait and see.

e

DELEGATIONS OF AUTHORITY AT YOUR COUNCIL

All too often the ‘delegated authorities’ embedded in, invested in, local councils are overlooked and trivialised. Also, what isn’t understood, possibly misunderstood, is the power granted to the holders of a delegated authority. Indeed,  how these powers can be, have been used, overtly and subliminally, towards all manner of ends is, seemingly, never examined. 

Essentially, local governance is entirely about ‘placemaking and placescaping’ and thus it impacts upon a community’s, and the individuals within it, well-being and self-worth. By extension, the ’trust’ invested in people with 'delegated authorities' is no trivial matter. 

In so many ways the power and authority these people hold under the Local Govt Act 1993 in Tasmania touches upon so many aspects of a community’s, and an individual’s, well being. The impact is enormous.

If and when these ‘authorities’ become bureaucrat playthings it is concerning. When they are granted willy nilly it is more than concerning. The cavalier approach to the investment of these powers is more than concerning taking into account all that they represent. 

How we govern places and thus create ‘cultural landscapes’ is something that cannot be overlooked. It is that which gives people their 'placedness'  – their sense of place, their belongingness.

Moreover, each and every person who has an interest in, a sense of ownership in, an attachment to, a place belongs to it as much as they might in various ways see it as belonging to them. 

Culture makes places and places make cultures. So again, those with whom we invest various authorities have been granted rights to do with shaping/making place that most importantly bring with them ‘obligations’ – onerous obligations. 

'Places' have Communities of Ownership and Interest (COI). A COI as a proposition, is an all-inclusive collective/community of people, individuals and groups, who in any way have multi-layered relationships with a place or cultural landscape and/or the operation of an institution, organisation or establishment – typically they are a network of networks.

A great deal of trust is invested in local governance and the ‘mechanisms’ devised to shape and make ‘place’. .

Against this background so many questions arise to do with 'delegated authorities' that beg for answers. Like, are the incumbents up to the tasks set them, or even up for it? How do they get/win their authority? To whom are they accountable? How can a reasonable citizen discover their identity and verify their authority? How might a reasonable person challenge a misused authority or a delinquent incumbent? And more still!

If you do not know who has what delegated authorities are in place in ‘your place’, what incumbents they bring to it, how they got it, or who is accountable to who, there can be no transparency – and no meaningful accountability. 

Anytime you ponder such things ask your local government for a register of delegated authorities. In Tasmania Councils are required to maintain such a register and make it available in a timely way. 

If you are unsatisfied with what you discover do not leave a stone unturned until you are satisfied. You have rights and you too have obligations in regard to 'placemaking and placescaping'. 

CALL YOU COUNCIL TODAY

BE INFORMED

11 Questions to The City of Launceston

Against the background of information currently circulating on social media and the personal representations made to the ‘Concerned Citizens Network’ relative to the reported removal of mature trees at Churchill Park a number of questions arise. In particular the questions are relative to Council’s reported declaration of a Climate Change Emergency.

• Does Council’s determination of a Climate Emergency have any currency at all within Council operations or any practical implications in regard to the realisation of Council works carried out on the ground within its jurisdiction?

• Does Council’s determination of a Climate Emergency have any veracity as a City of Launceston policy?

• Beyond the rhetoric, does Council’s determination of a Climate Emergency have any strategic importance going forward and if so where can the city’s citizenry find documentation of this policy to guide them in their strategic decision making?

• Who within Council has delegated authority backed by the relevant expertise to determine a course of action in the realisation Council development relative to declared policies? Also, what experience and expertise do they have in order to qualify them to make appropriate determinations in this area of Council’s operations?

• In regard to the Churchill Park carpark development who authorised the removal the removal of trees to facilitate the development? Given that a decision was made on what basis was it made?

• Does Council have an up to date register of significant trees and groupings of trees and associated vegetation that documents the significance of the tree, trees and/or the placescaping and cultural landscaping within which they exist? If so where can the city’s citizens and others gain access to the register?  If there is no such register why does it not exist?

• Is the significance of the mature trees removed at Churchill Park acknowledged in any way and especially so in regard to the role they play in environmentally securing the now defunct landfill site?

• How many trees have actually been removed and how many more in the area are intended to be removed for any reason? Indeed, what trees elsewhere are currently under threat of removal?

• What mitigation is intended to overcome the consequences of the removal of the trees that have removed and upon what expert advice is Council relying in regard to such mitigation?

• Is this an instance where SECTION 62 of the Tasmanian Local Government Act 1993 when the General Manager will determine a way forward or is it an instance where Council will decide the matter and/or reinforce its policy determination in open Council?

• What is the estimated cost to ratepayers in regard to resolving this matter and when will it be provided to ratepayers in order that interested parties can be informed relative to their planning in like situations?

Ray Norman

For and on behalf of LCCN

REVEIW OF QVMAG ANNUAL REPORT 2018-19

FOREWORD

The QVMAG's 2018-19 Annual Report should be seen as one of the most concerning documents to come out of Launceston's governance in recent times. Read critically, the evidence for functional unaccountability and the opacity of both governance and management is in plain view for anyone who wants to see it.

Moreover, the General Manager's statement in the press ... "Under the reform, the council is also looking at how to transition the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery and UTAS Stadium to a more contemporary and appropriate governance model." is a demonstration of his use of SECTION 62 of Local Government Act 1993. This is essentially an 'emergency power'  ascribed to his position and one that has been serially, and somewhat surreally, misused by recent incumbents. 

Here there is a good case for the proposition that the elected representatives, the QVMAG's Trustees by default, have stood haplessly by in disregard for their duty of care and the trust invested in them in their 'governance role'. Who has investments in the institution? Well: 

• Launceston's ratepayers; 

• Tasmania's taxpayers; 

• National and international donors and sponsors;

• Scholars and researchers; and 

• The owners of cultural and intellectual property held in QVMAG collections. 

That all this involves the expenditure of something in the order of $7Million of public monies, is non-trivial – and this is further compounded by the fact that there is an estimated $230Million plus in public assets at risk.

There must be change and 'reportedly' over some years external advice has been sought, and paid for – and by all accounts these 'expert consultants' have been paid quite handsomely. This 2018/19 report raises concerns that have remained unaddressed for far too long.

The status quo must not be allowed to persist. The current state of affairs must be brought to an end and with some urgency.

To read the review GO2
https://qvmag20182019.blogspot.com/

COUNCIL CAUGHT OUT TRYING TO PULL A SHONKY STUNT

The Resource Management Planning Appeal Tribunal's finding, is a breath of fresh air and the General Manager, on the evidence, seems to have faltered in his guarantee that he and his underlings had provided EXPERT ADVICE as he is required so to do under the Act.

The notion that Council might 'SHIFT THE GOAL POSTS' points to Council's readiness to bend and break rules.

Accountability and transparency are supposed to be the inviolable principles that guides Council decision making. In Launceston that looking like chance would be a fine thing.

Indeed, Councillors comments and behaviours at this meeting leaves a great deal to be desired and it is clear that they are more than willing to make political decisions before sound planning decisions. That’s a sad reflection on how they represent their constituents and the way ‘management’ is prepared to sully their professional standards.

It’s time for the shonky stuff to stop, way past time.

THE EXAMINER STORY

The outcome of the Gorge Hotel appeal has come under fire at the City of Launceston council meeting.

During councillor question time, Tim Walker asked a series of questions about the Resource Management Planning Appeal Tribunal's finding, which went against the council's approval.

Cr Walker questioned the process leading the hotel being recommended for approval. He also questioned mayor Albert van Zetten saying he was disappointed the RMPAT hearing did not favour the hotel being built, and the general manger for suggesting the council would continue to work with the hotel's developers to see the plan progress.

Other councillors around the table were visibly uncomfortable with Cr Walker's questions, which insinuated improper behaviour had taken place when the hotel was first approved by the council.

The hotel is proposed to be built on the corner of Paterson and Margaret streets, with neighbour Susie Cai lodging an appeal against the council's approval in July.

Last week, the tribunal decided in favour of Ms Cai's appeal

Hotel readvertised after council miss title Gorge Hotel to be readvertised for third time after council mistake

General manager Michael Stretton the tribunal had simply taken a different view than the council had. He said it was not correct to say the decision the council had made was an error.

When Cr Walker questioned who was responsible for recommending the hotel be approved, Councillor Rob Soward called a point of order.

Cr Walker said he could only go on media reports because there had been no media release from the council.

To which Councillor Janie Finlay suggested Cr Walker could have a conversation with the mayor or general manager at anytime to ask them the questions.

Councillor Nick Daking also questioned the RMPAT decision asking what the next step to progress the hotel would be, and what the original vote was.

When the council approved the hotel at its June meeting, Cr Walker was the only one to vote against the proposal.

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

City of Launceston council to help  JAC Group 

progress Gorge Hotel

+8

The City of Launceston council is happy to work with the proponents of the $50 million Gorge Hotel to see it progress.

The appeal against the council's approval of the hotel was upheld by the Resource Management Planning and Appeals tribunal last week.

Josef Chromy's JAC Group proposed the hotel.

The council's general manager Michael Stretton said support could be offered through a special area plan or a planning scheme amendment. However, how the council would assist is yet to be determined.

He said the planning scheme does not deal well with higher-than-average building proposals, which the council has already acknowledged through its building heights report.

"The scheme obviously needs more intricacies around the assessment of bulk and height for proposals such as this," he said.

The hotel was planned to be constructed on the corner of Paterson and Margaret streets in Launceston.

The hotel's construction would create up to 200 direct and indirect jobs.

The hotel was expected to have 145 rooms, a 500-people conference centre, 200-seat bar and restaurant, function rooms, rooftop cocktail bar, day spa and a gym.

Gorge Hotel appeal outcome receives mixed opinions 

Tarlia Jordan

A wave of disappointment is being felt around the state, after the appeal against the Gorge Hotel was supported by the Resource Management and Planning Appeals Tribunal.

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.

"Councillors are elected to represent the people, not big business, and they've swung the other way."

RELATED STORIES IN THE EXAMINER:

• Gorge Hotel approval 'protest'
• RMPAT hearings underway on Gorge Hotel
• Gorge Hotel approved by City of Launceston council
• Decision on proposed Gorge Hotel in Launceston delayed
• Gorge Hotel development application lodged
• Gorge Hotel recommended for approval
• Gorge Hotel petition unable to be submitted
• Gorge Hotel recommended for approval
• Gorge Hotel application lodged with council
• Hotel readvertised after council miss title
• Gorge Hotel to be readvertised for third time after council mistake
• Gorge Hotel created by six architects

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?.