Tasmanian Times

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

Economy

‘Gutwein’s Major Projects Legislation will deliver Fragrance Skyscrapers for Hobart and Launceston’

*Pic TCT: Image from HERE, where you can sign a PETITION …

First published September 18

The TCT said today that Peter Gutwein’s Draft Major Projects Legislation, if enacted, will deliver the Fragrance Skyscrapers in Hobart and Launceston, against the interests of local communities.

‘It seems that the purpose of the legislation is to fast track the approval of any development that is vehemently opposed by the community including the two massive Fragrance skyscrapers proposed for Hobart and the recently announced 70 metre high Fragrance hotel proposed for next to Launceston’s City Park,’ said TCT Director Peter McGlone.

The TCT said that the Major Projects Legislation proposes a process for fast tracking developments either at the request of proponents or through ministerial call-in powers, taking them out of the hands of local councils and other regulators and having a government appointed panel make an assessment and issue permits.

‘Contrary to the Minister’s public claims, the legislation will provide him with new powers to take the proposed 210 metre high Fragrance Tower development away from the Hobart City Council and have it fast tracked with no possibility of appeals.’

‘He can do the same for the proposed Launceston Fragrance hotel.

‘The Minister changed the legislation to state that a high building cannot be declared a major project solely because it fails to comply with council height limits, but as long the Fragrance skyscrapers fit one of the many major projects criteria they will be fast tracked.

‘The biggest problem with this legislation is that virtually any project could fit the criteria for a major project, and be fast tracked, if in the “Minister’s opinion” the project fits the criteria.’

‘The legislation fails to put a limit on the scale or type of projects that fit the criteria for a major project.

‘Just looking at the first criteria, virtually any project the size of a housing subdivision or larger could be a major project on the basis of it making a “significant financial or social contribution to a region or the state” (Section 60H).

‘The other major problem with the legislation is that the community will have no right of appeal over approvals, including people directly affected by a major project, and even no right to challenge the merits of an approved development through the Supreme Court.

‘While Minister Gutwein will make much of the requirements for public consultation, the community will have no right to challenge the final approval of a development to the appeals tribunal or the Supreme Court.

The TCT said that for example, if the Minister fast tracks the 210 metre high Fragrance hotel proposed for Hobart, the community could only mount a legal challenge on the basis that the assessment process did not follow the law, but cannot challenge it because it is too high for Hobart.

‘The Minister has seriously misled the Tasmanian people about appeal rights, by claiming in the Discussion Paper released with the draft legislation that “No changes to existing appeal rights under the Act are proposed” (page 11).

‘The Minister’s proposed legislation will remove appeal rights from a much wider range of projects than are currently excluded by Projects of Regional Significance Legislation, on which this legislation is based.

‘This massively reduces the community’s right to appeal developments to the tribunal and the minister is trying to hide this change from the Tasmanians.’

The Major Projects Legislation Land Use Planning and Approvals Amendment (major projects) Bill 2017 and Consultation Paper were released for public comment on 28 August 2017 with comments due on 2 October 2017.

To date there has been no attempt by the government to inform the Tasmanian people of what these changes involve and no attempt to encourage or assist people to make submissions.

The TCT encourages all concerned people to make submissions by the 2 October deadline, including via the TCT’s website.

EARLIER on Tasmanian Times …

Leo Schofield: Despoliation by developers …

DONALD KNOWLER: A soaring city reaps a terrible toll

Dr Ian Broinowski: Do we really wish to be known as Phallus City … ?

RICHARD FLANAGAN: ‘They do not allow construction of high rise buildings in their cities’ historic heart …’

• Tim Upston in Comments: The Liberals’ outrageous rigging of planning laws has already caused untold misery and loss of real estate values for many Tasmanians … Gutwein and his cronies have no other driving ambition than to try to turn the tide for their developer mates who have been kept at bay in this state as it has been acclaimed internationally for its natural assets which have seen a massive increase in tourism. Our unique place, flora and fauna is something we should be celebrating … but Gutwein would rather we just become another high rise metropolis with a top storey view of the mountains …

Greens: No Reassurance for Launceston Over Fragrance Skyscraper

13 Comments

13 Comments

  1. O'Brien

    September 16, 2017 at 10:35 pm

    … McGlone was an ardent supporter of Fox Task Force blanket 1080 poisoning of tassie, all because his “expert” mate recommended it. Time has come … like McGlone to go. …

    (edited)

  2. Keith Antonysen

    September 17, 2017 at 12:53 pm

    The Fragrance buildings are completely out of character with the Hobart skyline. The aesthetics of Hobart will take a deep plunge should the buildings be allowed. From many viewing points they will mar the fabulous mountain behind them.

  3. Tim Upston

    September 17, 2017 at 2:50 pm

    The Liberals’ outrageous rigging of planning laws has already caused untold misery and loss of real estate values for many Tasmanians …..Gutwein and his cronies have no other driving ambition than to try to turn the tide for their developer mates who have been kept at bay in this state as it has been acclaimed internationally for its natural assets which have seen a massive increase in tourism. Our unique place, flora and fauna is something we should be celebrating….but Gutwein would rather we just become another high rise metropolis with a top storey view of the mountains…

  4. Chris

    September 17, 2017 at 3:41 pm

    Fancy that
    A
    Tall
    Corny
    Outrageous
    Nipple
    To
    Ruin
    Obart’s
    Lustre
    Lasily
    Erected
    Right where it is
    ‘Scandalous’

    Despicable
    Or
    Nix
    Attempt
    To
    Inform
    Or
    Negate greed or

    The
    Information
    Necessary to maintain our democracy in Abetzland.

  5. Chris

    September 17, 2017 at 3:48 pm

    Gutwhiner, Fat Controller, Grinning wood seller, Wee Willy eyebrows all Morris dancing to the tune of some Eastern potentate who will RUIN our city and place big sums in their Pulp Mill Fund no Shame, Shame, Shame and sham caring for our city.
    Something rotten in the staten of Denmark, oops Hobart.

  6. Elizabeth Viney

    September 18, 2017 at 4:47 pm

    How large was the political donation Fragrance gave to the Liberal Party?

  7. O'Brien

    September 18, 2017 at 5:35 pm

    Considering the Mantach affair it’s not a million miles to consider what works in Victoria works in Tasmania…

    http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/a-10k-donation-bought-a-property-developer-a-penthouse-meeting-with-matthew-guy-20170918-gyjwd5.html

  8. TV Resident

    September 18, 2017 at 8:12 pm

    No 6….You are soooo right. How much ‘bribe’ money has changed hands???

  9. Elizabeth Viney

    September 19, 2017 at 1:33 pm

    Is it not interesting that the Fragrance Group has bought up land near universities in both Hobart and Launceston.

    Could their intention be to cash in on that and build a huge number of small units of accommodation that Asian parents would buy for their children to attend university here. As well as multi-purpose use of tourist accommodation and apartments.As well as having a bolt hole in case the family has to get out of China lickety-split.

    A one way street if ever there was one.

    Non-Australians are allowed to buy up property and assets here but that is not reciprocated in their countries.

    It wouldn’t be quite so bad if Fragrance Group even paid lip service to our culture, architecture, heritage and way of life. The arrogance of transporting several skyscrapers from Singapore and just planting them here for their own profit is even more mind numbing when we see our elected officials falling over themselves to accommodate them.

    Goes to prove you don’t have to go to war to rape and pillage the vanquished any more. You just have to use the time honoured method of greasing a few palms and they’ll scramble for it. How unedifying!

    The new Ta Ann.

    Go to any networking function in this state and the room is filled with mainly men and they all wear black. Men in Black making all the decisions amongst themselves and then informing the public.

    We’re getting shafted both ways.

  10. John Hawkins

    September 19, 2017 at 6:32 pm

    #9

    The developer is from Singapore, a truly international city that does not suffer corruption or fools gladly or lightly.

    Drug couriers and dealers are subject to the death penalty.

    The Chinese community in Singapore holds its head very high. As a result, this efficient and beautiful city state is run by clever hardworking citizens for the benefit of their own.

    As Abetz has so eloquently stated just today of his own Liberal Party, you can never trust an Australian Liberal Party pollie.

    I think the problem here in Tasmania is one of differing cultures and expectations.

    Such a tall building is completely out of keeping in Hobart and totally in keeping in Singapore.

    Could the developer be asked to direct his investment in Hobart and his obvious energy to the redevelopment of the Hobart wharf site.

    Now that would be a result and a big step up from a pile of wood-chips, as proposed by the current Liberal state government.

    I suggest the developer from Singapore is straight and the future developer of the Wharf site will have to be bent.

    That is how business is done in Tasmania, and the Wharf is too good a financial opportunity for our pollies and their cronies to waste.

    Hence all the departures by the good from the Board of the developing authority.

    Ta Ann is from Malaysia – a hotbed of serious corruption.

    The owners of Ta Ann or their associates are reputed to have stolen $15 billion from their own people according to Lukas Straumann in “Money Logging: On the trail of the Asian timber mafia”.

    That is why they are welcome in Tasmania.

  11. W Ramanovich

    September 22, 2017 at 5:13 pm

    Been reading David Leaman’s “Walk into History in Southern Tasmania” and there is a good bit about the geology under Hobart city.

    So I do wonder how stable the underground is in order to cater for such a high structure.

    W Ramanovich

  12. Christopher Eastman-Nagle

    September 23, 2017 at 1:55 pm

    As an outsider observer, it seems to me that the critique being offered here is of a Tasmania that suffers the double blight of not only being a backwater economy, but a backwater politic as well; you know; a Bjelke-Peterson Deep South Memorial Trust for Unrepresentitive and Corrupt Small Town pro development Swill.

    The problem with that for the critics however, is that the critique can be a double edged sword; you know, The Deep South Small Town Provinincial Trust for Unrepresentative NIMBY Swill.

    I notice that some of the critics talk of the rights of ‘the people’ and ‘the community’, as if they were not ideological grass roots astroturf themselves…which of course does not mean that they are wrong, so much as isolates in a sea of democratic indifference, that doesn’t give a damn about being turned into a temperate version of the Gold Coast.

    The problem is that NIMBYs use the extensive language of political objection to stop things like wind farms; anything that disrupts the comfortable status quo and the repose of sleepy and complacent incumbents.

    The Fragrant Friend has well and truly set the cat among the pigeons with something truly spectacular/outrageous. He will rapidly pinpoint the NIMBY weakness and play the developer’s traditional answers to the indifferent bumpkin electorate. He’ll take a haircut on the height, contribute to some worthy restoration project, get his permit and everyone who matters will go back to sleep….

    The only way to deal with that is to move from being reactive to proactive, because our fragrance boy won’t be the last of his kind. The Chinese are coming and they are going to be big. And the trick is going to be how to accommodate them without destroying the quaintly old fashioned things that attract them to Tasmania’s built environment, and attract them to the natural beauty of the place.

    Inevitably, that is going to be a compromise, because while tourists want to see and experience something ‘different’, it can’t be too different. I mean, Australian tourists go to Bali to see an exotic third world place and people, but end up in resorts and recreation precincts that look exactly the same as what they are used to in Australia.

    The Chinese are exactly the same….

  13. john hayward

    September 23, 2017 at 9:32 pm

    After the nearly successful monster gift of the pulp mill, the Land Swap heist, the Fox Eradication caper and numerous other jobs pulled off without any reaction from the Tas populace, you can understand why the the Libs feel they can get away with absolutely anything.

    John Hayward

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To Top