George Town Council approves controversial amendment

FROM THE EXAMINER

By James Brady Oct. 17, 2012, 12:43 p.m.

click here to go to source and read all the comments

MEMBERS of the George Town Council public gallery today left after police were called to the council meeting at which a decision was made to approve an amendment to the council's planning scheme. 

Deputy mayor Bridget Archer and councillor Tim Cory boycotted the meeting after the decision was made. 

The planning amendment will allow a state government funded $6 million child and family centre and link hub to be developed on the town's historic Regent Square. 

More than 40 people were at the meeting, many of whom were in opposition to the agenda item related to the controversial development. 

Councillor Tim Cory and deputy major Bridget Archer boycotted the meeting after the decision was passed to amend the scheme. 

The amendment will first need to be approved by the Tasmanian Planning Commission. 

Councillors Tim Cory and Stephen Geale and deputy mayor Bridget Archer voted against the amendment, which was lost 3-6. 

Regent Square is believed to be discussed at a Tasmanian Heritage Council meeting today regarding its entry to the Tasmanian Heritage Register.

Full story in The Examiner 

OCTOBER 18 

Sample of  23 comments ... click here to go to source and read all the comments

Helen J Wood 
Only in George Town would the Council vote against its community wishes and build on a historic heritage site that is an asset to the area. No wonder things are not going so well for our town. When a perfectly good alternate site is available for free, why would the Council not try to reach a compromise and keep everybody happy. It would be interesting to find out why they rushed this decision through so quickly, with little notice of intent, even to their own councillors. This is an autocratic council that needs a conciliator and some professional development to learn how to work with its community and not hold a siege mentality towards the voters. The only reason some of them are there is because there were no alternative people to vote for.



•••••••••••••••••••••••••

Henry Turner 
This is a black day for democracy and Local Government.
When a Council Mayor feels it necessary to call police to clear a public gallery, then that Mayor and that Council has lost the plot, and should be replaced by an administrator forthwith.
Georgetown Council is now part of a conspiracy to dupe the thinking ratepayers of their municipality by facilitating this odorous application ahead of their incoming Planning Scheme designed to fit the State Model.
Read the details and the facts about how this application was brought before the Council table today, breaking all of the rules and protocols for the preparation of an agenda item.
Shame Georgetown Council, shame.



•••••••••••••••••••••••••


Helen 
The Mayor set a belligerent tone at the meeting from the outset with his preamble. An amendment was duly passed- with no councillor discussion.  An amendment  was voted down to give councillors  further time to interpret the change to the OLD planning scheme- and to leave the planning application/amendment on the table until next months meeting. SUCH HASTE ??, with Heritage Listing in process and well underway. It was very concerning that last months minutes were noted by a Councillor as inaccurate, and not a true and accurate record, and an amendment to include the 'lost minutes' was voted down by most councillors!!!!!. Knowingly passing minutes as being a true and accurate record of a meeting, when plainly they were not, where is The Local Government Association when you need them? Communication breakdown big time between George Town Councillors and the rightly concerned Ratepayers.


•••••••••••••••••••••••••

Peter Fahey 
Helen Wood's summary is spot on.  She sums it up very well, and in fact is being charitable.




•••••••••••••••••••••••••

Dave Longdon Collapse


We "sell " ourselves on being a the oldest town .With very little remnants to keep this statement true.Yet once again the "Council" railroads through their own agenda.There are alternative sites available.Bring on the next Council election



•••••••••••••••••••••••••

GEORGE TOWN COUNCIL TO VOTE ON REGENT SQUARE DEVELOPMENT - DESECRATION!

Council will act as a Planning Authority at this WEDNESDAY's Council Meeting – starting 1pm to approve or disapprove the GEORGE TOWN HUB.  This is the first item on the Agenda after Public Question Time.

 

Copies of the AGENDA  are available to the Public from Council Chambers – all 345 pages of it!

 

31  REPRESENTATIONS  are included  – 1 for and 30 AGAINST the Development Application.

 

Unfortunately, most of the reports have been scan/copied onto the Agenda and the printing is so small we had difficulty reading it!

 

How can Councillors be expected to read – and understand - so many pages of very small print between Friday  and Wednesday afternoons?

 

And how can they make an informed decision on this contentious issue unless THEY DO READ EVERYTHING?

 

The Agenda is also on the Council website – but be warned Part 1 is 12 MB!   Click here.

http://www.georgetown.tas.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/111019__PUBLIC_COPY_Agenda_October_-_Part_1.pdf

 

Matthew Clarke of HOBART firm Johnstone McGee & Gandy Pty Ltd has prepared the report that evaluates and responds to the Lester Franks' planners Claire Gregg's and Rebecca Green's Planning Application and the Representations.

 

We find some of his conclusions and interpretations of the George Town Planning Scheme QUESTIONABLE to say the least! 

 

However, Mr Clarke presumes to be better informed than members of the Tasmanian Planning Commission who approved the Amendment for a 'Civic' Building as a Discretionary use, BUT considered the purpose of the Hub did not entirely fit the "Civic" description, but was more an "Education" and "Health" use class!

 

Does he really believe all those rooms on the plan are for MEETINGS? 355 square metres of them?

 

And that they won't be used for EDUCATIONAL or HEALTH purposes?

 

Or that there will be NO fence around the outdoor playground – right next to the road?

 

We wonder if he's ever been to George Town and seen the effect this building could have.

 

The Agenda also includes a 28 page Traffic and Parking Report – that was NOT AVAILABLE with the other Planning Documents, so no-one has had a chance to respond to it!  It was obviously done in a hurry using NSW and Southern Tasmanian data.

 

This hastily prepared report seems to be 're-assessing' the complete parking requirements for all the buildings on Regent Square, but almost ignores the fact that staff and patrons of the businesses right along the main section and further, of Macquarie St use these parks.

 

And if there is a bus trip for a community group there could be another 20 or more cars parked there for the day!

 

This is how Mr Clarke justifies this building on our public recreation reserve:

 

"The proposed building will be government owned has been designed for use by a number of government administered community services, including a Service Tasmania office, Centrelink services, meeting rooms, a Learning and Information Network Centre (LINC) and child family centre (CFC) and public indoor spaces.

 

Whilst the LINC could be classified as a 'Education Establishment' under the scheme it is a resource link to the Centrelink and Service Tasmania functions and as such is considered and integral and incidental use under Clause 2.6.1. 

[ IT IS A PUBLIC LIBRARY FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE! AND NOT PERMITTED! ] 

 

The CFC may be viewed by some as a 'Health Centre' however as no professional child care is proposed; this is not consistent with this definition.

Accordingly, the CFC areas are considered assembly areas, which is consistent with the Civic Building use class."

 

And yet Claire Gregg's report says:  "It is NOT a Place of Assembly..."

 

THIS IS QUITE AN ELABORATE SET-UP FOR A GLORIFIED PLAY GROUP!

 

Now, what is that old saying?   "A rose by any other name ... ..."  

 

or maybe it's a "wolf in sheep's clothing"?   

 

 

"Friends of Regent Square"

 

 

 

WHEN IS A MEETING ROOM NOT A MEETING ROOM?

ANSWER:   When it's a TRAINING ROOM or a CONSULTING ROOM, or maybe a PARENT ROOM in the proposed George Town LINC Hub!

The first attachment was the plan given by Siobhan Gaskell and Jenny Rayner of the Education Dept (LINC) to four "Friends of Regent Square" as recently as 30 June this year to illustrate what was intended in the Hub – we doubt those 'services' have changed in that time.

This was the Education Dept's only attempt at "community consultation" since the Information Forum held in the Hall on 2 Aug 2010.

The TOTAL AREA OF MEETING ROOMS in the proposed Hub is 355 square metres !

FOUR large and ONE very large MEETING rooms – were originally labelled TRAINING rooms

TWO medium MEETING rooms – were originally labelled CONSULTING rooms and

THREE smaller MEETING rooms – one was labelled a PARENT room in an earlier plan

Why does George Town need all these meeting rooms?

When we ENLARGE the small print  on the latest Hub plans (see attachment), we see:

PURPOSE OF HUB 

The major services in the Hub include:

Child and Family Centre for Children under 5 yrs and their families / carers 

Meeting Rooms are for VET  [ie Vocational Education Training], Training Providers with access for community groups.

Service Tas. for Govt retail and information, including Driver Testing Facility

Centrelink Access  [computers only we assume!]

LINC (Library Information Network Centre), including On-line Access [ie Public Library – not a 'Civic' use!]

We already know that the Hub is to cater for Adult Literacy and Adult Education (re-named LearnXpress) and various aspects of Computer Training,

and the smaller 'meeting rooms' in the Child and Family Centre are more likely to be used as CONSULTING rooms for Child Health & Parenting Services (CHAPS) and other health services that will be relocated from the George Town District Hospital and Community Health Centre.

Sounds very much like "EDUCATION" and "HEALTH" to us!

 

The Memorial Hall extensions were planned to cater for the needs of this community for the next 50 years, with the Macquarie Room included to provide a suitable meeting room with catering facilities for community groups.

The few groups that used the former SES Room had found other premises when the Online Access Centre was relocated to the Macquarie Room, but the Supper Room is able to be used - as well as areas in the Council Chambers when appropriate.

IF the OAC is relocated – or CLOSED - the Macquarie Room will then be available for community meetings.

The relabelling and inclusion of this large area of "MEETING Rooms" is a deliberate attempt to make the building better fit the 'Civic' use, but it is obvious that their main purpose is "EDUCATION" / "TRAINING" – despite the caution from the Tasmanian Planning Commission during the Amendment Appeal. 

We are not likely to need ANY more MEETING Rooms in George Town.

If they are 'meeting rooms' they are going to be surplus to the needs of our community and this building could be much smaller – enabling it to fit somewhere else!

"Friends of Regent Square"

PS

CHECK OUT Part One of the 345 page AGENDA for next Wednesday's Meeting where the Council will act as a Planning Authority to approve or disapprove the Hub:

WARNING – it is 12 MB!

http://www.georgetown.tas.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/111019__PUBLIC_COPY_Agenda_October_-_Part_1.pdf

WHEN IS A "CIVIC" BUILDING NOT A "CIVIC" BUILDING?

ANSWER:   When it's the proposed George Town LINC Hub!

The Education Department's Planning Development was advertised as a "Civic Building Incorporating Service Tasmania, Learning and Information Network Centre and Child and Family Centre...

AGAIN – refer to the Tasmanian Planning Commission's letter to the George Town Council of 7 Dec 2010  on the earlier posting, where the TPC indicates its opinion that a branch of Service Tasmania  is use class "Civic Building";  but the Child & Family Centre best fits the use class "Educational Establishment"  and a LINC / Library best fits the use class "Health Centre".

The Development must be assessed against the GEORGE TOWN PLANNING SCHEME which gives the following definitions:

A Civic Building - is one designed, used or intended to be used by Government Departments, statutory bodies, or the Council as offices, assembly rooms, meeting halls or other like purposes and includes a general post office, telephone exchange, police station, fire station, or ambulance depot.

eg Service Tas, Housing Tas., meeting rooms – IF they ARE meeting rooms ? #   

The Planning consultants for the Education Dept contend the GT Hub is NOT an Educational / Establishment

Educational / Establishment  means a primary school; high school, college, technical institute, academy, university or other educational centre, PUBLIC LIBRARY, lecture hall, art gallery, or museum but does not include an institutional home.     

NOT PERMITTED IN A "CIVIC" ZONE

#There are 4 large 'Training Rooms', 2 'Consulting Rooms' and a 'Parent Room' on the first plan, but these are ALL re-named 'Meeting Rooms' in the latest plan.     – see attachment.   http://www.georgetown.tas.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/LINC_Proposed_Floor_Plan.pdf

WHY?   Because it better fits the 'civic' use?   

 The Planners contend the GT Hub is NOT a "Health Establishment", but do not mention Consulting Rooms / Health Centre

Health Centre  means a maternal and child welfare centre, a centre for the care of handicapped persons, an x-ray centre, a public medical clinic, a nursery or a day care centre, crèche or kindergarten but does not include consulting rooms;                     

NOT PERMITTED IN "CIVIC" ZONE

Consulting Rooms / Health Centre  means a building or part of a building (other than a hospital) used by a legally qualified medical practitioner, dentist or by a chiropodist, physiotherapist, masseur, chiropractor, dental mechanic or other person ordinarily associated with a medical practitioner or dentist;     

NOT PERMITTED IN "CIVIC" ZONE

 What were/are the "Consulting Rooms" on the Hub plan for?

The Planners contend the GT Hub is NOT a Place of Assembly

Place of Assembly

means a building used or intended for use as a place of recreation, entertainment or amusement and includes use as a theatre, cinema, dance or concert hall; casino, meeting hall, reception room, recreational grounds, church or Licensed Establishment;                          

Private Recreation means the use of lands for parks, gardens, playgrounds, sports grounds or other grounds for recreation which are not normally open to the general public;    eg  HUB PLAYGROUND

Public Recreation means the use of land for a public park, public garden, foreshore reserve, playground or grounds for recreation which are normally open to the public;     eg   REGENT SQUARE

Principal Use means the predominant activity proposed or existing for which land is utilised and where more than one activity is proposed or in operation then the Principal Use is the use determined to have the greatest affect on the neighbourhood or environs;

SO, IS THE HUB A "CIVIC" BUILDING, OR NOT???

The Education Department's promotion of their LINCs, CFCs and Hubs certainly focus on 'education' and 'health' issues - support for learning and literacy, community training programs, gaining new skills, support services for children and families, child care, adult education, library, computers....

A perusal of distributed promotional material and of websites show an emphasis on these two 'uses' with only the Service Tas., Centrelink and other government services matching the 'civic' use.   Google for more!

http://www.education.tas.gov.au/childandfamily/plans/governance 

http://www.linc.tas.gov.au/fast-facts/

Even a recent note on Parent's for the George Town Child and Family Centre (CFC) Facebook says:

"Wow! Only a week until the state forum here in George Town. If you have children in birth to 5, grandchildren, nephews, nieces, or work or have an interest in early childhood education and health then this is for you...."

Just because the services are "integrated" does not change the nature of the service or the "use" for Planning purposes.

If the Principal Use in this building is 'health' and/or 'education' it is not permitted under the George Town Planning Scheme on the portion of Regent Square that is subject to a Discretionary Use as "Civic". 

  

The changes to all the rooms formerly labelled 'Training' and 'Consulting' and 'Parent' Rooms to 'Meeting Rooms' on the most recent plans seems to be an attempt to make the Hub better fit the 'Civic' use. 

"Friends of Regent Square"

THE GENERAL MANAGER ADVISES THE TASMANIAN PLANNING COMMISSION

Following up on the Tasmanian Planning Commission's  letter to the George Town Council attached to the previous posting:

 

In answering the TPC's 'caution' that the proposed development (ie LINC Hub) on Regent Square – for which the Amendment to allow a "Civic" Building was being sought – MAY not fit the "Civic" use, the General Manager replied in part:

 

"The degree of integration of any proposed uses which may form part of a future development on the site does not form part of the current application for a specified departure and as such Council is not in a position to argue that a particular use which may be proposed will or will not fit the definition of a Civic Building.

 

If the uses described are indeed the intention of the applicant and the amendment is approved, then the applicant may be required to substantiate such an argument in another forum. ... ... "

 

READ THE FULL RESPONSE on the Council's website: 

Correspondence with respect to the Planning Scheme / Regent Square

http://www.georgetown.tas.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/2010_12_22_TPC_-_Regent_square_GT_Planning_Scheme.pdf

 

 

"Friends of Regent Square"

2010 AMENDMENT TO GEORGE TOWN PLANNING SCHEME 1991 (REGENT SQUARE) - for a 'CIVIC' Building

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

CATCH UP ON THE PROGRESS SO FAR:

George Town Council - COUNCIL MEETING – 25 August 2010 - CONFIRMED MINUTES

P 15  - 235/10 SPECIFIED DEPARTURE – 29-67 MACQUARIE STREET, GEORGE TOWN (REGENT SQUARE)

AUTHOR: Planning Consultant (Johnstone, McGee & Gandy Pty Ltd) [But WHO wrote it???]

FILE NO: PID 6440533

SUMMARY

This report discusses the outcome of the public exhibition of a proposed amendment to the George Town Planning Scheme 1991. Six submissions were received during the exhibition period. It is recommended that a modified Draft Amendment be forwarded to the Tasmanian Planning Commission.

BACKGROUND

On 1st June 2010 a S.33 Application was lodged with Council, proposing that a specified departure be inserted into the Planning Scheme to allow 'Civic Building'  discretionary status at 29-67 Macquarie Street, George Town (Regent Square). The use is currently prohibited on the site, which is zoned Public Recreation... ...

NOW READ ON http://www.georgetown.tas.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/100825_Minutes_-_August_2010.pdf

DECISION -   Moved: Cr Archer; Cr Parish  -  That pursuant to Section 39(2) of the Land Use Planning & Approvals Act 1993, Council forwards a copy of this report, the representations, the Applicant's response and the Draft Amendment to the Tasmanian Planning Commission for consideration.

CARRIED -   For: Crs Burt, Barwick, Broomhall, Parish & Archer   Against: Crs Cory & Widdowson

An APPEAL to the TASMANIAN PLANNING COMMISSION followed this decision.

Read the Preliminary Report (attached) and the final report from the TPC online:

http://www.planning.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/166431/GEO_2-2010_Delegate_decision.pdf

PUBLIC QUESTIONS starting P. 5 make interesting reading too! Some examples:

Peter Parkes, George Town

1. Given the grave public concerns of Regent Square developments, will Council be taking any steps to have Regent Square listed as having heritage status being the

oldest town in Australia.

The Mayor stated that this had not been considered, however will investigate what would be required. The Memorial Hall is already listed.

The GT&D Historical Soc. Inc  HAS put in a comprehensive application for Regent Square to be added to the Heritage Register.

3. Will Council be holding another public meeting in regards to public concerns to Regent Square and what other consultation will there be with the community?

The Mayor stated that no decision had been made to date, however it was important to have information available for public consideration and the Mayor stated that when further information has been provided Council would be happy to have another public information forum if required. 

More than 14 months later – NO PUBLIC MEETING has been held and a DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION is being assessed !

Gerald O'Doherty, George Town

2. Has the report considered the existing use and any potential extension to the hall which would require additional car parking area's? Where will the car park go if there is an additional building there? Where is extra car parking going to go for the new facility, and will there still be enough parking for the Memorial Hall?

The Mayor stated that the previous Value Management study looked at car parking in relation to the design of Regent Square. The parking area behind the hall has

already been extended.

In 1935 the section of the park 'resumed' for parking was restricted to 50 yds (42.43m) from Macquarie St. NO FURTHER parking area has been APPROVED.

Where are the  extra 120 car parking bays required for the hall extensions?

Lorraine Wootton, Low Head

1. Was any consideration given to the views of the community discussed at the Value Management report on the two day workshop, or to the responses Council received from community groups on the development of Regent Square?

And, did Council ever consider that this building would result in a duplication of services and facilities in this community?

George Town, now has its very distinctive multi-purpose, cultural centre in the focal point of the town, at great expense and not expected to be paid for, for many years. Has Council considered that when most of the activities - especially the library – are shifted to the proposed Hub it could become an empty shell – the upgraded amenities and our Bicentenary Quilts could be no longer accessible to the public at most times?

The Mayor stated that no other buildings were envisaged at that time, Council will be considering use of any vacant space within the Memorial Hall.

Did this really answer the question fully?

WHAT IS THE USE OF PUBLIC QUESTION TIME, IF QUESTIONS ARE NEVER FOLLOWED UP OR CONSIDERED?

MANY REMAIN WITHOUT SATISFACTORY ANSWERS.

"Friends of Regent Square"

"VISUAL AMENITY" - IT'S ALREADY COMPROMISED!

http://www.georgetown.tas.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/2007_-_Februrary.pdf 

Mayor's Message Feb 2007 shows plan  of Memorial Hall extensions and details of  'Community Reference Group'.

http://www.georgetown.tas.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/070306_Minutes_Special_Cl_Mtg.pdf

Special Meeting – 6 March 2007

P 10 -  SITING AND SETBACK OF BUILDINGS ... located adjacent to the closed residential zone, the applic. has been assessed for potential impacts on that residential development in terms of neighbouring amenity. The minimum building setback to the Closed Residential Zone is in excess of 50 metres.

The proposed LINC Hub will be much closer than  50m to its neighbours in Elizabeth St!

If it was considered unacceptable for any part of the building to be closer than 50m from its neighbours in Elizabeth St when the Hall was extended, WHY IS THAT NOT STILL THE CASE????

'VISUAL IMPACTS  -  The development of the subject site as proposed will have few impacts on visual amenity external to the site itself.' 

 WE MIGHT WELL QUESTION THE LAST ASSERTION IN HINDSIGHT! 

Ask the neighbours what THEY think of this!

WHAT EFFECT WILL THE 6.8m HIGH LINC HUB HAVE ON "VISUAL AMENITY"?   HARDLY MINIMAL!

There was minimal 'consultation' after the Memorial Hall Re-Development was approved, the final plan being quite different with stadium section stretching much further ACROSS the Square.

While many still deplore the effect if this large scale extension on Regent Square, the new Graham Fairless Centre does provide a wonderful facility for a wide variety of activities – it's just a pity it's so high.

But it is a distinctive, STAND-ALONE BUILDING which serves as our Cultural and Civic Centre.

It will NOT be complemented by any additional buildings nearby.  

WHY compound its impact on the Square, by building another one?

"Friends of Regent Square" believe 'enough is enough'  

SAVE REGENT SQUARE FOR PUBLIC RECREATION !

A COUNCIL TIMELINE - FROM HALL RE-DEVELOPMENT TO LINC HUB PROPOSALS

http://www.georgetown.tas.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/GT_memorial_hall_and_surrounds_re-development.pdf

31 Aug - 1 Sept 2006 -  Value Management Workshop held on Memorial Hall & Surrounds  Re-development.  40 participants from community groups invited – list begins P. 93.

 

http://www.georgetown.tas.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/061212_Minutes__without_in-committee_.pdf  

Minutes 12 Dec 2006

P 32 - 41 -  The Memorial Hall is a Heritage Listed building based on its significance to the community, and characteristics as a post war international style building.   Applicn. Approved.

 

http://www.georgetown.tas.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/070220_Minutes_(without_In-Committee).pdf   

Minutes 20 Feb 2006

Development Applicn made - one submission received. Special  meeting once works permit rec. from Tas. Heritage. ..tenders should be called early March. Landscape plans being sought.

 

http://www.georgetown.tas.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/2007_-_Februrary.pdf 

Mayor's Message Feb 2007 shows plan and details of  'Community Reference Group'.

 

http://www.georgetown.tas.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/070306_Minutes_Special_Cl_Mtg.pdf

Special Meeting – 6 March 2007

P 1 – 6 -  Public Questions

P7 - 26 - Memorial Hall Re-development Approved - Council acting as  planning authority.

CARPARKING  ...there is not sufficient car parking in both the eastern and western car parks within Regent Square ... Council will be undertaking car parking design in conjunction with a landscape design.

 

 http://www.georgetown.tas.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/080220__Minutes.pdf 

Meeting – 20 Feb 2008 

P. 11  Re-location of On-line Access Centre 

P. 71  ...Council receive Regent Square Master Plan and seek community feedback on this plan in accordance with Council's Community Consultation Policy and that a public meeting be held.

 

14 March 2008 - GT&DHS Submission to GTC re Regent Square Landscape Guide Master Plan - No acknowledgement received.  (Followed up 22 April 2010 - requesting moratorium on further buildings and parking and restoration of historic plaques and Rotary Clock - still no acknowledgement !)

 

http://www.georgetown.tas.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/080319_Minutes_(without_In-Committee).pdf

Meeting 19 MARCH 2008

P 3-7  Questions  - Online Access Centre

P 35  Memorial Hall Opening

Page 51-55  Re-location of OAC in the Macquarie Room in the redeveloped Memorial Hall Cultural & Civic Centre... the project was to create a high quality, multi-purpose cultural and civic centre that would provide for the community's needs over the next fifty years.

 

28 March 2008  -  Memorial Hall Official Opening

 

21 April 2008 - Regent Square Master Plan Public Meeting held (same date GTDHS' special ANZAC meeting) -  we believe the consensus was 'no more buildings on the Square'. 

 

http://www.georgetown.tas.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/080423_Minutes_(without_In-Committee).pdf

Meeting – 23 APRIL 2008 -   P100 - Report on Memorial Hall Opening

 

http://www.georgetown.tas.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/080521_Minutes_(without_In-Committee).pdf 

Meeting – 21 May 2008

P 97-8 - Report on Regent Square Master Plan Public Meeting held on 21 April 2008.

P99 - 101 - Full Report of Memorial Hall Redevelopment with final costing, loans, etc was received by Council.

 

http://www.georgetown.tas.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/090527_Agenda_(without_In-Committee).pdf

Meeting – 27 May 2009

P. 5 -  Public Question - Mr Austin, George Town: Concerning the municipal hall development, car park and flower beds which aren't completed, how soon will this take, and to what extra cost?

The Mayor acknowledged that there were areas still to be completed.

The General Manager (Interim) stated that the car park area to the North of the Hall is complete however the road is yet to be constructed. The road has been left for the present time in anticipation of the commencement of the new LINC community building, the position of this centre has not yet been determined, however it is anticipated that it may be on either side of the hall, thus it was not appropriate to complete the areas surrounding the hall until the situation concerning the location of the new centre has been finalized.

 

WE ASK AGAIN - WHAT HAPPENS TO THE 120 EXTRA PARKING BAYS REQUIRED BY THE HALL EXTENSIONS?

 

In particular, the 48 that were planned to be on the site of the LINC Hub?

 

 

"FRIENDS OF REGENT SQUARE"