Article
‘Disappointing Decision on Gorge Hotel’
Statement – Launceston Heritage Not Highrise, 17 March 2022
Planning Commission Decision 8 March 2022
Sadly, as you more than likely have already heard either as a Representor or through the media, the Tasmanian Planning Commission have approved the Draft Amendment/Specific Area Plan put forward by the JAC Group through Launceston City Council in respect of the proposed Gorge Hotel; …in fact in a quick look through the 22 page decision document received from the TPC it is difficult to find anywhere where the TPC disagreed with the developers/Council!
Dean Cocker was heard to say during an ABC Radio interview that it will take the JAC Group some time to compile a new Development Application which will then be submitted to Launceston City Council for their approval the outcome of which of course, given the current status of Launceston City Council, will be a foregone conclusion HOWEVER between now and then there is a very good possibility that the local government elections will occur (due October) and, IF we work very hard, the composition of the Council may (could) well be completely changed!
Only a few votes can make all the difference between being elected, or not, in any election but especially local government elections as with voting not being compulsory so many people don’t even bother to vote so it is not beyond the realms of possibility to change the entire composition of Launceston City Council and thus influence the decision of any future development application for the Gorge Hotel.
Obviously we are all extremely disappointed at the outcome which, in reality, brings the credibility of the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal into question when any decision they make can be so easily reversed by developers and those with vested interests.
NOTES & QUOTE FROM THE DECISION DOCUMENT
Point 82. “In the planning authority’s (Launceston City Council LCC) assessment the urban quality of the area is relatively poor and does not contribute aesthetically to the city. The streetscape does not have a consistent character and consists of a combination of land uses that have developed sporadically.”
The planning authority (LCC) and the proponent relied on the interpretation of regional & local strategies in particular the Northern Tasmania Regional Land Use Strategy (NTRLUS), the Greater Launceston Plan (GLP) and Horizon 2021 City of Launceston Economic Development Strategy, not the planning scheme which rejected the first development.
And the commission took their lead: Point 27 “While there is a divergence from the existing planning scheme provisions, the potential benefits to the city support the basis for the divergence. … Point 30 The planning authority considers that the draft amendment has an ability to maximise investment and the SAP would provide assurance to future investors.”
During the hearing it was also obvious that the council is relying on this amendment to facilitate other developments in the Margaret St precinct – ‘kick start’ was a word that was heard.
Point 83. “At the hearing, Mr Jamieson (LCC planner) explained that the draft amendment would provide a new form of development that could change the area towards a more strategically desirable direction. Mr Jamieson notes that the area is identified as an area of transition and that the draft amendment would assist the transition by encouraging higher intensity development suitable for urban areas. “
Again the commission agreed with council Point 95. “The Commission notes that the planning authority has identified the Margaret Street corridor as an area strategically suitable and intended for transition to a higher intensity urban form.” In point 62 the council states that a building heights study is currently being prepared. It should have been done long ago, instead we have a developer calling the shots for them.
Point 14. “In response to the landscape and scenic amenity policies, the planning authority (LCC) notes that the site is not within an area identified as being of landscape or scenic significance under the regional strategy, however, submits that on the basis of visual assessments undertaken, the surrounding visual amenity can be maintained.“
And the commission agreed with them: Point 21. “The site is an established urban site which is currently occupied by a service station, a bottle shop and a carpark. It is accepted that it does not hold landscape values as identified under the regional strategy as it is not located within an area of scenic or landscape significance. The surrounding area consists of a variety of land uses and building types with no distinctive streetscape character. No heritage provisions apply to the site, or any adjoining buildings or areas.”
There is still the issue of whether the land can support a development of this size. The evidence presented to the commission was inconclusive. The commission declared that geotechnical/seismic matters can be dealt with when a development application is submitted to council.
The Decision document link to Tasmanian Planning Commission.
Highlighted Document Attached
LASTLY
The next local government elections will be held during September and October 2022 https://www.tec.tas.gov.au/