MORE BACKGROUND to PARKING ON REGENT SQUARE

The REGENT SQUARE MASTER PLAN 2007 was prepared by Dr Andras Kelly and was commissioned as part of the Memorial Hall and Surrounds Re-Development.

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

From the Minutes of the George Town Council Meeting held on 20 Feb 2008 – Page 71 we read:

61/08 REGENT SQUARE MASTER PLAN  -  DECISION:

Moved: Cr Barwick  / Cr Cory   That Council receive the 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.

MOTION CARRIED  For: Crs Barwick, Broomhall, Burt, Cory, Geale, Parish, Wallace, Widdowson

Read the full Minutes:  http://www.georgetown.tas.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/080220__Minutes.pdf 

The Regent Square Master Plan was the subject of community submissions in early 2008

and the Regent Square Master Plan Public Meeting held on Monday, 21 April 2008.

The Memorial Hall and Site and Zone Plan attachment gives a very clear picture of the parking area to the west of the hall that was to provide 48 of  the extra 120 parking bays required by the extensions - all of them appear to be beyond the 50 yd (42.43m) 'resumption' from the Public Recreation Reserve from 1935!

  

THIS IS THE SECOND LANDSCAPE PLAN COMMISSIONED FOR REGENT SQUARE BY OUR COUNCIL SINCE 1999!

The almost 100 pages of the GEORGE TOWN CENTRAL AREA STRATEGY  was commissioned by Council in 1999.

http://www.georgetown.tas.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/George_Town_Central_Area_Strategy_(June_1999)_-_Report1.pdf

NEITHER REPORT CONSIDERS PUTTING MORE BUILDINGS ON REGENT SQUARE!

From the 2007 Landscape Plan:

"Regent Square represents the most significant area of open space within the Centre (of George Town), and provides a venue for community gatherings and recreation. The Square has significant potential to provide a landmark, or signature space, which defines the character of George Town and values of its community.

The newly extended Memorial Hall with its impressive, modern architecture and the existing, basic layout of the park established a pattern for development. It is not the intention of the landscape guides to create a "clean slate" and to start with a totally new design of Regent Square. The design guidelines intend to build on the existing good features of the park, and allow for the positive development of the park over a considerable time. Trees take a long time to grow and mature and one needs to respect those which have already reached successfully the mature stage."

During the process of the "Civic Amendment" last year, which paved the way for the current Hub Development Application, the Education Dept's Project Manager, Claire Gregg 'ruled immaterial' any evidence given by representors based on both the 1999 GEORGE TOWN CENTRAL AREA STRATEGY and the 2007 REGENT SQUARE MASTER PLAN because, although she had referred to them herself, she stated neither report had been formally adopted by Council. 

IF not adopted, WHY not?   HOW MUCH HAVE THESE REPORTS COST OUR COMMUNITY? 

It is obvious that the large and comprehensive 1999 report HAS been referred to when we look at what's been done in our Central area since then.

Whose responsibility is it to make sure these costly reports are dealt with by Council in the appropriate manner?

And that all Ratepayers' money is used wisely and responsibly?

"Friends of Regent Square"

PARKING IN REGENT SQUARE (or RECTANGLE) - is there room for the Hub?

In 1935 a frontage along Macquarie St of 50 yds (42.43m) to the west and the east of the hall was 'resumed' from the gazetted "Public Recreation Reserve" of Regent Square for purposes of parking and other public services.

 

The 2008 Memorial Hall extensions with its commercial kitchen to cater for up to 250 people, also required an extra 120 parking bays.

 

See the Minutes of the George Town Council SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING – 6 MARCH 2007 

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

 

(Page 18, but the whole document makes interesting reading including Public Question Time – you'll find some interesting answers here!)

 

85/07 REDEVELOPMENT OF MEMORIAL HALL (BUILDING AND WORKS OF HISTORIC INTEREST) DA 2007/012

14. On site Parking

A detailed design plan of the proposed on site parking in accordance with the requirements of AS 2890.1 , 1993 Parking Facilities – Off Street Car Parking, shall be provided to incorporate a total of 120 car parking bays including at least two parking bays for the disabled and adequate turning provision for emergency and other service vehicles required to utilise the internal road network.

 

So the landscaped area at the end of the new Graham Fairless Centre, including several mature trees and the Soroptimists' Protea Garden, was bulldozed (without notification to the club!) and gravelled to make way for parking. Another parking area to the east of the hall where the children's playground is, is also shown on the Landscape Plan.

 

While the rest of the parking area has been sealed, the gravelled area at the end of the GFC has been left for the proposed Hub.

 

That "gravelled patch" where the Hub is proposed to be built is the planned site of at least 48 of these extra 120 parking bays! 

 

All of these are beyond the 42.43m mark!  [see the parking plan on the attachment]

 

So the final stage of the Hall & Surrounds Redevelopment (officially opened in 28 March 2008) was never completed.

 

The Lions Club Grevillea Garden with its mature trees and shrubs looks like going the same way of the Soroptimists' Garden to make way for the Hub! 

We all know how long it takes for such trees to mature, especially in public places and in this climate!

And what does this say about valuing the work of Service Clubs and volunteers in this community?

 

The LINC people and their Planning consultants tell us there is no need for extra parking for the Hub which is equal to the hall extensions, but if it is to attract 'everyone' to its comprehensive services and activities that are now located in the Community Health Centre (Hospital), Council Chambers, Neighbourhood House, Wattle Group or at one of the three schools, etc surely that should require some extra parking bays - or will they all travel by bus?

 

And who pays for the bus – not the state government we were told recently?

 

The most recent plans for the Hub show less than 50 parking bays more than were available before the Hall redevelopment. 

 

Only 17 of these are within the 42.43m frontage resumed for parking - 70 less than required for the hall extensions and no extras for the Hub! 

 

Count them for yourself on the Parking Plan:

Proposed Site Plan  http://www.georgetown.tas.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/LINC_Proposed_Site_Plan.pdf 

  

The Tasmanian Planning Commission Report on the 2010 Amendment advises: "whatever is eventually approved on the site, it should be so limited to not add to the parking provision on Regent Square outside that area resumed for the purpose in 1935."

 

Read the Full Report on the Amendment

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

 

So where will the extra required parking go?  Back behind the hall, further into the square? 

Parking already extends well beyond the 50 yd (42.43m) mark and will this continue?

 

WilI we see MORE 'retrospective" Amendments to the George Town Planning Scheme in relation to our Public Recreation Reserve?

 

GEORGE TOWN COULD END UP WITH A "REGENT RECTANGLE" in place of our "REGENT SQUARE" ???

 

Just in time for the Bicentenary celebrations of the 1811 visit of its planner, Governor Lachlan Macquarie – the so-called "Father of Australia" !

 

 

All Councillors should think on this carefully before they vote as a Planning Authority on 19 October........"Friends of Regent Square"

 

 

 

 

 

Fw: Traffic in Macquarie Street / Regent Square - is there a SAFER place for the Hub?

While we continue to wait for the Traffic Impact Assessment to be delivered to the George Town Council – the clock is ticking!

 

Representations are due in next Tuesday 27 September, so how do we respond by then when we won't see it until Monday at the very earliest?

 

We hope the Planning consultant has seen first hand how busy George Town's main street is on most days of the week, from the first roundabout right down to Elizabeth Street.

 

There are rarely many parking spaces in the main street so the carparks on both sides of the Memorial Hall are well utilised. The eastern carpark is almost always fairly full as people access shops and services in that end of Macquarie St and the Online Access Centre and Library in the Memorial Hall – from that end of the town. 

 

Most of the traffic to the Jetty, the Pier Hotel, the Bass & Flinders Centre, the popular Yacht Club / Windmill Point  /  Belle's Tearooms area and to The Grove in Cimitiere St, must proceed down the main street to the Macquarie / Elizabeth St corner.

 

At present anyone proceeding down the main street who can't find a park, or needs to park for more than half an hour to visit businesses in the western end of Macquarie St (Chicken Feed, hairdressers, Freddie's and other stores, Miriam's or Mario's restaurants), or to visit the library and other activities in that side of the Memorial Hall, needs to drive around the Elizabeth St roundabout to enter the carpark to the west of the hall.

 

With the limited area for parking in the lower end of Elizabeth Street , the western end carpark is also used for the 'overflow' of traffic from here.

 

With all the extra services that will be relocated from the virtually new Community Health Centre (Hospital), the Council Chambers and from the Neighbourhood House and possibly Wattle Group, AND with a Bus Lay-by outside the Hub in Elizabeth St, this area could become very congested – and not very safe for lots of small children OR elderly people on walking frames, gophers, etc!   An accident waiting to happen? 

 

I'm told there was once a successful Childcare Centre in the old Graham Fairless complex (originally Comalco's Single Mens' Quarters) between Goulburn and Friend Sts – and the site was ideal, being very safe and away from traffic, etc, within easy walking distance for most parents and close to the Friend St Supermarket .

 

Is this area still owned by George Town Council?  What's happening there?

 

A member of the Local Enabling Group told us she felt this site would have been 'central' enough for the purposes of the Hub and there was certainly plenty of space there.

 

Do parents have a problem accessing our only Childcare Centre in Gordon Square? Or any of the three schools?

 

 

 

STILL NO TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR GEORGE TOWN'S LINC HUB DEVELOPMENT

We also rang the Council this afternoon and no-one could tell us when the Traffic Impact Statement would be available!

 

This is an integral part of any such development and it is usual to expect to see it in the Planning Documents.

 

This is the second time this monstrous development on Regent Square has been advertised –

after the first attempt went off half-cocked and omitted some crucial requirements.

 

The second advertisement appeared in the Examiner last Wednesday 14 September – still not quite according to

regulations but at least you could see this one – and there are only 14 days in which Representations can be made.

 

Now with only a week to go – we still haven't been able to see all the documents. Wouldn't it have been wiser

to wait until ALL the documents were to hand BEFORE re-advertising it????

 

At least SOME owners of premises around the Square HAVE had a letter notifying them of the development.

We hope they will put in a representation to Council as their 'outlook onto a park' will certainly be compromised.

 

And we've noticed that there are NOW notices on pickets on each side of the Square – and there's a bit more

information than what was on the original notice on the one pole on Elizabeth Street - not just the "two that are

required on a corner block" (quote).

 

But still the notices don't tell you WHERE the representations should be sent as required by the regulations!

 

     (4) A notice referred to in subsection (3) is, in addition to any other matters required to be contained in it,

          to name a place where a copy of the application, and of all plans and other documents submitted with

          the application, will be open to inspection by the public at all reasonable hours during the period for

          which representations may be made.

 

     (3) A notice under subregulation (1) is to –

 

(a) describe the content of the development proposal and the location of the affected area; and

 

(b) advise that representations may be made in accordance with section 57(5) of the Act, together

   with details of where and when representations can be lodged; and

 

(c) include any other details determined by the planning authority.

 

 

Planning Documents for George Town LINC Hub - STILL INCOMPLETE

Planning Documents for George Town LINC Hub - STILL INCOMPLETE

 

I am a citizen of George Town.

There is a planning application for a Hub building in the Town.

 

There wasn't any details of traffic in the Planning Application notes.

 

I went in to the Council yesterday to view the traffic impact statement

but was told it is still being done.

 

Why is it so late ???

 

Come on, surely all aspects of the application should be done now.     

 

Lynn

RE-ADVERTISED GEORGE TOWN LINC HUB PLANNING APPLICATION

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

GEORGE TOWN LINC HUB PLANNING APPLICATION - RE-ADVERTISED TODAY!

We were very pleased to open The Examiner this morning and find that the George Town Council had RE-ADVERTISED the Planning Application for at least ONE of the large developments previously advertised so inconspicuously on Saturday, 29 August!

And today another notice was posted in Macquarie St – this is the actual street of the address given for the building - still 29 – 67 Macquarie St  (PID 6440533).

Presumably, this number is required but what does it mean to the average person? Sounds like an awfully long building! 

And isn't it on "Regent Square" ? Why couldn't that be included somewhere?

The General Manager, Stephen Brown also advised by email that he had 'requested the Development be re-advertised on a without prejudice basis'.

And further that, although he was, "unable to accept the veracity of all of the matters you raise; the decision to re-advertise the application has been made in recognition of the following:

·         Only one onsite notice was posted by Council staff – two are required for a corner allotment

·         The applicant did not include the use of a small portion of the actual site for the proposed bus shelter in the terminology detailing the project scope, and

·         The applicant did not provide adequate details in the form of a Traffic Impact Assessment for consideration as part of the proposed development in the initial documentation."

The D/A therefore includes the mention of Utility Services (Major) – Bus Shelter that was missed off the first Advertisement!

And presumably, the Planning Documents will now include a little more in regard to a Traffic Impact Assessment.

Many locals are wondering how the already busy corner of Elizabeth and Macquarie Sts' will cope with this large development that is said to be for EVERYONE!

With the Library moving to the western side of the Memorial Hall we can expect ALL its clients to use the western carpark.

Mr Brown goes on to say that, although it's not a legal requirement, 'property owners abounding the square' will be notified 'in the interests of communicating the development'.

"The re-advertising of the project allows that all existing representations will be considered as well as any additional representations received.

All representations should be based on planning considerations as applicable under the George Town Planning Scheme 1991."

So -  IF YOU MISSED OUT ON PUTTING IN A REPRESENTATION (ie objection) TO COUNCIL? (or is it to the General Manager?) 'in the last round'; or wish to put in another, you have 14 days to get one into the Council Chambers –  that is until 5 pm Tuesday 27 September? ...or is it Wednesday 28 September??? 

Do we count today or not in those 14 days?  You see, Mr Brown, it still isn't very clear !

If the actual date had been included, like those in today's paper from Break O'Day, Flinders and West Tamar Councils, there would be NO confusion – these three all say 14 days from 14 September, but one has 28 Sept and the other two say 27 September! 

However, each one does 'spell out' EXACTLY how to put in a legitimate representation.

And one even gives an email address as an option. Do George Town residents have that option or not?  We would hope so, but it's not clear!

I suggest you check with the Council – and maybe get it in writing.   Or get it in on the Tuesday – just in case!

While there are still some omissions which we believe the regulations require, at least today's advertisement was in a more noticeable  format - thank you for that!

WEBsite George Town: http://georgetownratepayers.blogspot.com/

George Town Pool

Hi I wish to submit comments about the opening times of the George
Town Swimming Pool. The opening times are 1.00pm until 500pm.
There is to be no early morning swim .What about swim times during
the morning .? What about swim times after work .?
Who is the Manager catering for ?Come on there are Mums who are free
when children at school .There are plenty of workers who would like a
swim.
I
From Pat Webb

FOR YOUR INFORMATION

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

8 September 2011

The General Manager
George Town Council
Anne St
George Town 7253

Dear Mr Brown
We, the undersigned have had legal advice which confirms our belief that the George Town Council has failed to give proper notification to the George Town community in accordance with the Land Use Planning & Approvals Act 1993 Section 57, and in respect of the two Planning Applications advertised in The Examiner on Saturday, 27 August 2011
ie.

• DA 2011/77 Woolcott Surveys obo Low Head Developments 6 Lot Subdivision at 257 - 261 Low Head Rd, Low Head; and
• DA 2011/78 Department of Education obo The Crown for a Single Storey Civic Building Incorporating LINC, Service Tasmania and Child and Family Centre

We hereby request that the George Town Council re-advertise these two Planning Applications in accordance with the regulations and in a more conspicuous format to that used in the Examiner Notice on Sat 27 August and allow another 14 days for representations, in order to properly inform the public as required by the relevant LUPA Act and to fully reflect the Council's core values, as stated in the Council's Strategic Plan, in particular

3. EQUITY & TRANSPARENCY: Equity, consistency and transparency is paramount in Council decisions and processes to ensure fairness to all sectors of our community.

To expand on our claim of improper notification of Planning Applications:

Firstly, in relation to the Notice of Planning Applications in the Examiner newspaper, the purpose of these notices is to give the public proper information on all aspects of the developments. This notice is defective, in that it has failed to indicate where Representations should be lodged ie George Town Council, and to whom it should be addressed (General Manager or Council?). Although not legally required, it is the usual practice and would have been helpful, to have indicated the actual time and the cut off date for representations to be made.

Secondly, considering the size of both these large developments, the descriptions are defective, in that they fail to describe the extent of the actual developments for the information of the public. A 6 Lot Subdivision is hardly descriptive of the developer's intent.

DA 2011/78 is described only as a "Single Storey Civic Building Incorporating LINC, Service Tasmania and Child and Family Centre" which we believe is misleading as it is yet to be proven that this building IS a "Civic" building (and the TPC certainly indicated this) and whilst it may well be single storey, it is still a high profile building at 6.800m high. Furthermore, as there has been negligible consultation within the wider George Town community in relation to this large development, and because we still have a "Library", the term "LINC" is not generally or widely understood and many people would have no idea what it is - so too, with a Child and Family Centre.

Also in respect of the latter development (DA 2011/78), the description of the site of the proposed development as 29 - 67 Macquarie St (20 blocks!) is extremely vague and misleading. The proposed building is planned for a section of the SW Macquarie/Elizabeth St sector of Regent Square, and it would have been reasonable to expect "Regent Square" to be mentioned in the description so that everyone understood where it was.

While the format of the notice is not covered by the Act, it would appear to be purposely designed to make the Planning Notice for these two large developments as inconspicuous as possible, and this does not reflect the Council's core values of 'Equity, Consistency and Transparency in Council decisions and processes...' . It was completely different to the usual notices, with a tiny, compact font, no spacing or bolded headings, an unfamiliar logo, and no 'George Town Council' at the top. The most recent one (Wed 7 Sept) was an improvement. The attached copy of the last four GTC Notices illustrates my point.

The LUPA Act also requires that notices be placed as near as possible to each public boundary. There is only ONE notice on a pole in Elizabeth St to the west, and no notice anywhere near the eastern or southern side of the site where most people park or come to go to the shops, Library, Online Access Centre or other activities in the hall - nor is there one to the north - none at all in Macquarie St - the address that is given!

The only notices at the two sites, fail to comply with the regulations as they do not inform the public that representations may be made in respect of the Development, where they may be made, or where the plans may be inspected.

Furthermore, the neighbours who live in close proximity to the site in Elizabeth St have not been notified of the DA 2011/78 Development as required by the Act.

Council advised that the Plans would be available for inspection in both the foyer of the Council Chambers and of the Memorial Hall from Monday 29 August for 14 days, but the plans that were on display in the Hall up until at least the end of Thurs of the first week were the OLD plans. I believe the correct ones were put up some time on Friday, but by Tuesday 6 Sept they had been taken down again for a Planning Workshop and on Thurs 8 Sept, the OLD ones had reappeared!

Admittedly, there is not a lot of difference between the 'old' and the 'new' plans, apart from the changing of the 3 large "Training Rooms", 2 "Consulting" Rooms and a "Parent Room" all to become "Meeting Rooms", presumably to better fit the "Civic" use, but there was nothing to indicate these were NOT the latest plans.

Again in view of the above, we request Council re-advertise these two Planning Applications in accordance with the regulations and in a more conspicuous format to that used in the Examiner Notice on Sat 27 August and allow another 14 days for representations, in order to properly inform the public as required by the relevant LUPA Act and reflect George Town Council policies and values.

Sincerely
Loraine Wootton
Des. Wootton

NOTE: a separate Representation has
been lodged with the General Manager.

REGENT SQUARE GEORGE TOWN: Call for Parliamentary Enquiry

There needs to be a full Parliamentary enquiry into the proposal for the establishment of a new LINC building in George Town. For a start, there has been no proper survey of the needs of George Town users of the LINC services. The LINC proposal is for a library, adult literacy program and an on-line centre. This is what is being catered for by LINC services in other towns.

George Town already has a library. It already has an on-line access centre. There have not been adult education courses in George Town for many years, mainly because the type and cost of courses were not suitable. Instead we have the School for Seniors that has operated successfully for 12 years. Many other groups such as Neighbourhood House, Lighthouse Regional Arts, and Wattle Group offer a wide range of courses in the town, as also does the On-line centre. Even the adult literacy program recently established in George Town is not new. My wife ran it here for 7 years, and she did not need a $6,000,000 building to run it in.

There has been no consultation with any of the users of these LINC services in this town about the proposal to move these facilities 100 metres and place them together with a Child and Family Centre in the proposed new development on Regent Square.

There is no doubt that George Town does need a Child and Family Centre, but why does it have to be in Regent Square. It is claimed that if it is not close to the supermarket and Chickenfeed young parents will not use it. What an insult to the people of George Town! What an insult to the enthusiastic group of parents in our town campaigning for it!

In no other town in Tasmania except Queenstown has it been suggested that the two be combined with the LINC. In Huonville, East Devonport, St Helens, Beaconsfield, Ravenswood, Chigwell and Clarence Plains the two services are not together. It makes sense in Queenstown because the complex also includes the Council offices, the Polytechnic and the Tasmanian Skills Institute. That is not the case here. The LINC is more than a kilometre away from each of the TWO skills training centres in the town and from the Grade 11-12 programs run by Port Dalrymple School. This spreading of learning facilities for post school learning is a waste of the taxpayer's money and simply will not work.

Peter Cox

Who Owns & Has an Interest in Regent Square?

Who owns this park? Who has an interest in what happens to it? On the face of it the answers to these questions are probably being characterised as “simple” or “obvious” or even “straightforward”. However the chances are that none of that is so.

If a study were undertaken as to whom the groups, individuals and networks are that hold a sense of ownership, and have a legitimate interest in Regent Park, its very likely that it would expose some very interesting information.

Typically the best time to undertake such a study/audit is when there is contention in the air. At these times those with competing layers of ownership and interest self identify. Yet there are typically others laying low because they are reluctant to be enjoined in a controversy.

The outcomes of controversies are almost always unsatisfactory. Likewise most controversies can be avoided if the information and evidence needed is gathered and taken into account.

In regard to Regents Park it would seem that it would be useful to identify the ‘place’s’ Community of Ownership and Interest – and inclusively rather than exclusively. With that in hand there is a better chance to mitigate against inappropriate hierarchies being set up, hierarchies that are ever likely to underpin rather poor decision making – self serving decision making even.

Stakeholders would of course be a component of Regent Square’s Community of Ownership and Interest [COI] but by necessity a COI list would be a more expansive list than a typical stakeholder list. Stakeholders are generally seen to be those with a pecuniary interest of some kind relevant to the square and undoubtedly an equitable COI list will include many more groups –formal & informal– than a ranked and exclusive stakeholder list.

So it seems that the task that needs to be undertaken is a COI audit even if it is late in the day. It is never too late to gather evidence just so long as it is a truly inclusive, open and transparent process that is employed to gather it. This is an instance where there are tensions between ‘lore’ and 'law’ and the evidence will surely reflect that.

Ray Norman
Tasmanian Coordinator
LANDliteracy Network

LINCs and LIBRARIES

Maybe the money that has been splurged on changing the identities of all our well-recognised State Libraries into *LINCs, would have been better spent on supporting the well-run Adult Education programs that provided an affordable way of pursuing an interest that may lead on to bigger things.

And locals and visitors alike would still know where all the Libraries were. Winking smile


* A LINC is a four-letter word for a library!

A Message for Nick McKim & Others

This year is of great importance to George Town, as it is the bi-centenary of Governor Macquarie arriving in the town in 1811, and producing a town plan for the young settlement.

200 years later it is probably the best example in Australia of a Macquarie town, as the basic town centre layout is still intact. The main feature is the large Regent Square which was designed to give the people a significant recreational space. Now the Minister for Education, Mr. McKim, and his department, has decided that the square should be desecrated and a Hub built in one corner of the square.

This is equivalent to the Minister announcing in Hobart that the Education Department is to build a LINC in Hobart in Franklin Square or St David’s Park – just imagine the outcry from the people of that city.

Although Mr. McKim must be aware that this is a controversial issue, he has not been to George Town to discuss the matter with concerned people, but sends departmental staff, who have a different agenda. The Greens are supposed to be the watchdogs for our natural and cultural heritage, but have failed miserably in this case.

George Town is a long way from the latte-drinking set of Hobart, but issues of great importance to the people of this town should not be discounted or ignored. The State Government is also supposed to be saving money – this will not be achieved by removing resources from currently under-utilised buildings in the town to fill the new Hub.

The Department is also trying to circumvent planning regulations by underhand methods such as changing the names of Training Rooms and Child Care Rooms to Meeting Rooms in their revised plan.

John Watts, Low Head

EXAMINER SOAPBOX ARTICLE : Lorraine Wootton Speaks Out

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE

George Town's historic public recreation reserve, Regent Square is the chosen site for a large $6m government Hub, that includes a Learning Information Network Centre and a Child and Family Centre.

This central feature of our town plan, drawn up by Governor Lachlan Macquarie on his first visit to Van Diemen's Land in December 2011, has been the venue for most public celebrations and activities since the town was built. An application - long overdue - for it to be added to the Tasmanian Heritage Register was accepted in October 2010, although no assessment has been carried out , due to 'limited human and financial resources'.

The Government, and a slight majority of local councillors, have ignored the historic and cultural heritage of Regent Square, and the hundreds of George Town people who indicated their objections in numerous letters and petitions to State Parliament.

The proposed building will effectively cut off Macquarie St (our main street) from this iconic feature of our town plan. Although only a one storey building, the Hub is only slightly lower than the purpose built stadium wing of the Memorial Hall next door, and will completely obliterate the vistas across the Square from the north, and from the western end of Macquarie St – a desirable feature of any town square!

Elizabeth St has the majority of the town’s remaining heritage buildings and this large modern LINC along with its bus lay-by will dominate the SW corner. It makes a mockery of the council’s proposal for a ‘heritage precinct’ in this street. In fact it makes a mockery of George Town’s recent hard-won status as an ‘historic town’ and the plans that are underway to celebrate its Bicentenary in December this year!

I am not against a Child and Family Centre and the services it promises, but most of these are already available in other premises. A stand-alone CFC could be built on one of several other sites in George Town. There has been ongoing consultation with some of the younger people and those who will use the CFC, but none at all in relation to the LINC component, nor with the wider community.

When community representatives asked for a slightly larger library during the redevelopment of the Memorial Hall, Library personnel insisted it was big enough. Now, only a few years after its refurbishment at our community’s expense, they tell us we need an entirely new separate building – only a few metres away. This Hub offers little more in the way of services, but will draw activities and revenue from buildings that are funded by ratepayers.

In the past, councils provided premises for services such as libraries, courts, Service Tas., etc in return for rent. Recently, governments have built their own premises, resulting in lost revenue and under-utilised buildings that still cost councils (ie ratepayers) money. The old Court Room in the Council Chambers - a spacious, Blackwood lined area - has been virtually unused since around 2003. What happens when both Housing and Service Tasmania vacate?

The CFC and the LINC were originally two separate entities – as they are in almost all other towns. If George Town didn’t have a large square in the centre of the town, there would have been no difficulty in finding another site for these buildings if, indeed they are both really needed - and I doubt they are!

Lorraine Wootton, Low Head.

PLANNING A "HUB"

Correspondence to George Town's General Manager

Friday, 26 August 2011
Dear Mr Brown
Can you please tell me why the plans of the proposed government Hub (floor plan, site plan on Regent Square and site location plan) have been removed from the GT Council website in recent months?

As part of this community has been letter-boxed in the last few days with information regarding the state government’s continued intention to build on our historic 1811 Macquarie planned Regent Square, I feel these plans should be put back on the Council website and also put back in the foyer of the Memorial Hall where more people can see them.

These plans give a more accurate picture of just how much this building with its associated exclusive outdoor area, access road and parking, will encroach on the existing vegetation and recreational open space of Regent Square than the flyer that has been circulated.

In the interests of Community Consultation, I ask that this be done as soon as possible.

Sincerely ....Lorraine Wootton.

Lorraine,
Council has received application for Development Approval for the proposed Hub and the revised plans submitted with this application are on display in the Council foyer as of Monday morning. The application is to be advertised in the Examiner this Saturday and I have requested electronic copy of the revised plans to display on the Council website with hardcopy at the Hall. A further copy of the plans will be held at the Council Offices for public inspection as part of the process. I trust this is of assistance in your enquiry.

Kind regards Stephen Brown

"Thank you, Mr Brown.
If you hadn’t advised and I hadn’t expected it, I could well have missed the advertisement – as many will, no doubt!


A $6m project - and it’s lumped in with another DA with no GEORGE TOWN COUNCIL heading and no spaces or bolded letters – as with those immediately above and below for the Northern Midlands and West Tamar Councils - apart from your name at the end.

I was expecting something similar to the Amendment notice on 26 June 2010........Lorraine."

We considered a complaint to the GM and Crs but thought we’d try a letter to the Editor first. We really thought they would print it in the daily but have passed it to the ‘Tamar Times’ – too late for the Representation deadline! - they must consider its not worthy of full readership – not sensational enough for George Town! OR is something else at work here?

NEW PLANS FOR THE GEORGE TOWN Hub were gradually put on the GTC website over the weekend, so someone worked overtime. The plans were available for inspection in the Council Chambers foyer and were LATER put up in the Memorial Hall for people to see.

CONTEXT NOTE: The most noticeable difference from the older plans is that 3 large ‘Training’ rooms, 2 ‘Consulting’ rooms and 1 ‘Parent’ room have ALL become MEETING rooms!

Obviously to meet the ‘Civic’ use – rather than ‘Health’ or ‘Education’ that the TPC ‘advised’ that it was. George Town does NOT need any more Meeting Rooms - they are available everywhere!

HOWEVER - some people reported that the plans they had seen on display in the Memorial Hall still had the rooms labelled as "Training" and "Consulting" Rooms, we visited the hall late on Thursday afternoon to find THE PLANS ON DISPLAY WERE THE OLD ONES – with the rooms labelled ‘training’ and ‘consulting’. So the Library staff were informed and the significance of that change was explained!

In February 2011 the Tasmanian Planning Commission handed down their decision on the Council's bid to make an AMENDMENT to the GT Planning Scheme to allow a "CIVIC" Building on part of Regent Square.

As Representors we received copies. When we contacted the TPC for an explanation of some parts of their report it was explained that their task was to decide whether the Amendment should be made ‘..but there was an elephant in the room and everyone knew what the elephant was,...we considered that 2/3 of the proposed HUB building was ‘health’ and ‘education’.

Their preliminary letter (attached see below) advised that, but the GM wrote back and told them ‘their job was to assess the Amendment and not worry about the proposed building’ – not in those words - or as few - of course, but basically that what he said.

CLICK HERE TO MAKE THIS A LINK TO THE PRELIM REPORT

CLICK ON THE IMAGES TO ENLARGE

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: George Town Planning Applications

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Last Saturday (27 August) the George Town Council advertised a Notice of Planning Applications in The Examiner for two major developments - a 6 Lot Subdivision at Low Head, and a large $6m Government Hub that includes a LINC and Child and Family Centre.

The latter has been a contentious issue in the community for well over twelve months, but the Public Notice (2 columns x 10 cms on P.78) lumping these two developments together in tiny compact print with no spacing between the lines, is difficult to read comfortably. There are two tiny coloured council logos, but the only bold print is the 'Notice of Planning' and the General Manager's name - even 'George Town Council' is hardly noticeable at the bottom.

It invites any person to 'make representation ...' within 14 days, but omits to give details of the actual time and date, or who and where to. Most people are unfamiliar with protocols of Planning procedures and may not even understand what a 'representation' is - they need all the necessary information.

This notice varied so noticeably from George Town Council planning applications placed on the previous Wednesday for a private dwelling, and the previous Saturday for a transportable office, that I questioned the planning officer, and was told that Council had agreed on this new format for all their ads.

What is the point of a notice that nobody notices? Right from the start, our wider community has been 'kept in the dark' on details of this large development planned for our historic public recreation reserve, Regent Square - this appears to be a continuation.

I suggest that anyone who has objections to the Hub being built on our square, put them in writing and hand in to the General Manager by 5 pm on Friday, 9 September.

Lorraine Wootton, Low Head

NOTICE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS

In accordance with Section 57 (3) of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, notice is
hereby given that the following applications forissue of planning permits have been received:

• DA 2011 / 77 Woolcott Surveys obo Low Head Developments

• PROPOSAL 6 Lot Subdivision

• LOCATION 257-261 Low Head Road

• Low Head (PID1667624)

• DA 2011 / 78 Department of Education obo The Crown

PROPOSAL Single Storey Civic Building Incorporating LINC, Service Tasmania and Child and Family Centre

• LOCATION 29-67 Macquarie Street George Town (PID 6440533)

These applications, associated plans and documents will be available for inspection at the Council Offices, Anne Street, George Town during office hours for a period of 14 days. Further in accordance with Section 57 (5) of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 any person may make representation relating to these applications during the period of 14 days.
Dated at George Town this 27th day of August 2011.

Stephen Brown
GENERAL MANAGER
George Town Council