LONGFORD: Save the Hub of our Village!

Many concerned citizens have attended two public meetings over the past fortnight, and are now signing a petition that has been drawn up to be presented to the Northern Midlands Council meeting tonight.

The petition asks the Council to

– Implement a main street plan for Longford as a matter of urgency to ensure that the hub of the village is maintained taking into account the character of the village, liveability and sustainability.

– Work with the State Government and Australia Post to ensure that Service Tasmania and the Post Office remain in the traditional shopping precinct in Marlborough Street, Longford.

Longford has had a wonderful shop, “Browns big Store”, built as a Victorian style emporium in 1889. The current owner is building a new supermarket along with 3 specialty stores and a café on the northern sedge of the town, for which he had Council permission. About which there was some, but not a lot of community concern.

At the time of the application for that development it was written in the Council minutes: “The shopping precinct, including the existing Browns supermarket, is the hub of the village. ‘. This is followed immediately by ‘Comment: This is clearly the hub of the village and will remain so. The proposed relocation of the supermarket will definitely have an impact upon the shopping practices of many. However the bank, post office, hair dressers and other businesses, including the redeveloped and expanded hardware division of Browns, will maintain the historic village hub.’ This is in the recommendation from council staff, which was unanimously adopted by Council at that meeting 20 April 2009 (p.474).

The developer has now bought the Post Office, and obtained Service Tasmania as a tenant.

A spokesman said that the people are not concerned or about the Council giving permission for a new supermarket and 3 specialty shops, provided that did not include permission to relocate the public services of the Post Office, and Services Tasmania.

Townspeople are furious that work commenced on a second phase of the development without Council permission! This includes a top floor, and a further 4 tenancies. Finally even the Council seemed to have had enough, and they put a stop work order on the illegal working on the site.. Tonight Council has before it, from the developer application P10-252 , and from its own staff a recommendation that dismisses this illegality in less than two lines: “Construction started on the first floor and an extra 2 ground floor tenancies without planning approval and this application seeks to rectify this.” No mention of the extent of the work, for how long it had been going on, or any penalty for this illegal activity.

There has been no consultation with the people of Longford, about either this new, illegal development; the stripping of essential services from the hub of the historic village or more importantly what is envisaged for the future of the main street.

The town is festooned with ‘Longford: Save the hub of our village” signs, and hopefully many will attend tonight’s Council meeting. Hopefully Councilors will look at their own processes, seek community consultation and read their own, somewhat ambiguous strategic plan before agreeing to even consider this application.

Unpublished Letter to The Examiner:

The Longford town centre has proudly served the community of Longford and the northern midlands area, since first known as Norfolk Plains 200 years ago, following the removal of free settlers from Norfolk Island in the Pacific, to the cluster of 50 acre land grants provided around Longford.

Longford township was originally known as Latour, after Col. Latour, a Director of the neighbouring Cressy Company. The village postmaster and publican, Newman Willicott is said to have renamed the town Longford, however in Ireland, Longford was also the birthplace of the local Catholic priests.

John Harrison, noted Australian writer and publisher of historic volumes, described Longford as one of the most attractive of all the many pleasant and historic villages in Tasmania.

At the centre of the township, the village green is faced by the elegant Christ Church (1839) and across the street are handsome shops, houses and old inns, some which appear in W.P. Weston’s sketches of the 1830’s.

Just 22 km south of Launceston, the country’s third oldest city, many of the old buildings at Longford pre-date the establishment of Melbourne in 1835.

About a decade before the turn of the 20th. Century, Mr Alfred Brown established his business at Longford, initially in a small way, with the whole of his stock being conveyed there in a single waggon, but by 1900 he had worked up a business of considerable magnitude. Brown’s Cash Emporium, an imposing double storey red brick facade has stood in Wellington Street at the centre of the town ever since, and until quite recent years, was operated by successive generations of Browns.

Brown’s Store has served Longford well, and the community have been loyal customers. In 1808, Longford was a 2 hour trip over rough tracks from Launceston. Today it is almost a dormitory suburb of Launceston, just a short motor vehicle drive away, and within easy daily commuting.

The present owners of Browns have today decided to relocate their modern supermarket business to a greenfields site behind the Country Club Hotel at the northern town entrance, a site only recently made buildable following the construction of extensive earth flood levees.

So what is to become of the old town centre, now that its commercial centrepiece and even the post office, is to move to the new site?

The town folk are divided on the issue. Those with easy access to motor vehicles and probably pass the new site on their daily trips into Launceston, are happy with the move, but not so the remainder.

Other small businesses who cling around the old centre are despairing, because they suspect that those folk seeking a cuppa and cake, a bunch of flowers, a library book or an idle browse in a bric a brac shop, will likely be attracted to the new centre, or not at all.

Competing town centres and out of town shopping is a trend providing stiff competition for the town centre economy. Deloraine has dealt with this issue much better, and has kept its new modern supermarket complex firmly behind the old central strip.

The Councillors had the warning some time ago, but failed to act to realise a central site with parking and access. Their job now will be to develop an urgent stimulus package to support the old town centre.

The community is divided, and that will take quite some time to heal.

If government at all levels does not take heritage seriously, it cannot expect business and individuals to. There can be a balance between heritage and development needs, and there should be no major conflicts provided both sides think constructively.

But heritage buildings deteriorate if left unoccupied, and urgent attention to healing this exercise caused by a bad planning decision, will need urgent attention if the old township, its character and unique tourist identity is to survive and prosper.

Yours faithfully,
Lionel. J. Morrell
President
Heritage Protection Society (Tasmania) Inc.

Robert Henley:

I received a letter from the Planning Administration Officer today containing the reports by Council Planning Officers regarding Development Applications P10-292, and P10-294 to which I made representations. I have a number of issues with these reports, especially in relation to P10-292, which I believe make it invalid and of no value to you as you deliberate on the proposals. I have detailed some of these concerns below.

Development Application P10-292

1. My name has been omitted from the list of people who made representations as detailed at point 6 in the report. I can only assume that my submission has been ignored and that my concerns have not been addressed. I believe that the Report to Council, as circulated to those people who made submissions, is therefore invalid and should not be tabled or considered at the Council meeting on Monday the 18th October. Even though Mr Wilson and Mr Godier have tried to remedy this situation through emailing my submission to you, I believe that a serious breech of protocol has occurred and should be rectified before this matter is dealt with by Council.

2. The Report does not adequately answer many question posed by the representations. I question how Mr Godier can make a recommendation to the Council when all the information, including legal opinion, is not available at the time of the recommendation being made. For example, surely issues to do with traffic movement require proper investigation before a decision is made to approve an application which can only result in an increase in traffic movement and thus an increase in risk to motorists and pedestrians.

3. Why have Council still not provided DIER with the required information as per correspondence to Council 27th July, 2010 (as documented in the Planning Report page 3, paragraph 5, and page 6, paragraph 4). Again, how can Councillors make a proper decision made without considering vital information or recommendations from DIER.

4. The issue of vehicles parking in front of the Rebel Roadhouse is simply dismissed by Mr Godier, writing ‘it is likely that on street parking in front of the roadhouse will no longer be available.’ This issue should be considered and a proper decision made before the application is approved.

5. The issue of the impact of the development on the main street shopping area is dismissed by Mr Godier by stating that ‘this is an opportunity for the business community to attract additional services to the town’. This is a preposterous and insensitive suggestion to already struggling business people and does not address the concerns of the people making submissions. It would seem that approval of the application will have a direct impact on the main street. It should not be the responsibility of the remaining businesses to try to compensate for the losses which will be caused by the Council approving this application as suggested by Mr Godier.

6. The development of the second floor gallery and office space would require disability access. This issue is not even mentioned in the report.

Development Application P10-294

1. Mr Payton acknowledges that the Council’s Heritage Advisor Mr David Denman’s comments should be sought, but has not been able to provide these. Why has a recommendation been made in the absence of such an important opinion? Similarly, why has a recommendation been made without written comment from DIER?

2. My reading of Mr Payton’s report leaves me wondering how he has made his recommendation when the majority of the report provides no information to substantiate his decisions, simply relying on trite phrases such as ‘considered to be adequate, there will be no effect, not applicable,’ etc. Such dismissive language should not be acceptable to Councillors trying to make important decisions.

I hope that you will give my concerns due consideration and I urge you to consider the impact of your decision concerning Development Application P10-292 on the remainder of the business district and residents of Longford.

Thank you for taking the time to read this letter.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Henley

Picture: HERE

Ed: The Longford experience of questionable planning processes and decisions is yet another example of Tasmanian local government riding roughshod over its citzens

In a recent comment to Tasmanian Times former Huon Valley Planner Dallin Hutchinson said:

Dear Pat,

Don’t forget the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993. Oh wait! The Huon Valley Council has ALWAYS forgotten about the Act, and every other piece of enabling legislation. Council cannot arbitrarily take over a development proposal after it has been determined, and manipulate, or be manipulated into, changing conditions without public input and specifically those of the representors. And if my memory serves me right, there were SEVERAL representations in opposition to this proposal. Therefore, any minor amendments cannot be decided by Council unless representors on the original application are notified.

Having been the Planner at the time who worked tirelessly and VERY closely with the developer, the citizenship of Cygnet, the St. James Catholic school, and the Department of Infrastructure Energy and Resources on this proposal, I am appalled to hear the “behind closed door” decisions which have taken place with the amendments to this subdivision. All of which are clearly contrary to the outspoken wishes of the community, who I might add were very sensitive to this proposal but ultimately accommodating – provided that strict conditions were put in place with respect to generous open space and the retention of existing substantial vegetation.

Interestingly enough, this all rings in harmony with (questionable activities) within the ranks of the Huon Valley Council and warranted my resignation.

This comment appears on this Bob Hawkins’ article HERE