The fighting continues for Paterson Street development after the council's questionable rejection

Click on the image to enlarge

One day this debacle must come to an end but how, and what that will look like who knows. It all looks a lot like someone behind the scenes has something riding on a particular outcome. Thus far it is hidden but for whatever reason there seems to be reason enough to play this game out to its bitter end.

If there is to be 'a victor' it is not likely to be the municipality's ratepayers given the outrageous expenditures linked to the 'Council preferred development' and apparently all the expenditure has been initiated by Council and thus it is down to the Council. 

One day someone will reveal the metrics and every ratepayer is likely to be horrified. That will be especially so as they look at their next rate demand. Right now it will be denied but the 'lost dollars' would more than likely pay Council's executive management's salaries bill for quite a long time. As they say watch this space! ,

In fact, reading between the lines, there are very good reasons to bet on the Councils somewhat hubristic dream of a fancy bus stop with a somewhat nondescript 'creative enterprise' over it; funded in part by a Federal Govt. grant ostensively deemed to be 'drought relief funding'; plus a disposition apparently to give a developer a 'free kick'; well it all looks like falling into a horrible heap in a law court. 

This City of Launceston Council it seems is ever ready to give developers free kicks. A tally for the last decade would be a somewhat ominous reminder of the past and the mindset that brought much of the city's apparently ever growing debt burden all about. Just when do you look away?

Which ever way the wind blows the whole thing, in regard to this in-house development proposal, if looked at in retrospect, looks quite implausible. On the evidence, it should have been called out at the very beginning with alarm bells ringing loudly. However, the situation is what it is, and the municipality's citizens and ratepayers look like carrying a fiscal burden alongside missed opportunities for long time yet.

A merit based assessment of the 'owner initiated' Paterson St Central Development would satisfy a great deal of what a 21st C ideal urban development should/might look like. That is, in regard to onsite water management, the provision of housing, and with some minor tweaking, the possibility of onsite energy generation as well. In fact, arguably the parking facility should be 'placescaped at ground level'. However, it seems that the above ground parking plan was possibly a concession made to the mysterious ideology in play.

Nonetheless, in this case it appears, pitched as it is against an aspiring developer, and apparently aided by internal Town Hall imperatives, an ideologically motivated 'placemaking cum development', set against the 'owner initiated project', the latter curiously finds itself wanting. Even so, mostly for the lack of 'ownership of place', and that being something that was something unlikely to be gained by Council, it is perplexing to consider one project against the other. More to the point, how a change of 'ownership' could have been imagined is bewildering.

So, it seems that when an ideologically driven concept comes up against a merit based plan, in this case, the 'ideology' trumps merit. Therefore, it seems that there are questions begging to be asked. In totalitarian regimes the ideology always wins. 

However, if this development ever gets to be 'tested meritoriously', all things being equal, the outcome, as likely as not will be quite different to the determination that a majority of Launceston Councillors handed down at Town Hall June 2 2022.

Interestingly, on the evidence, the CH Smith carpark that opened just on three years ago in 2019 apparently fails the planning compliance test that the 'owner initiated' Paterson St Central Development is now claimed to fail – and on the available evidence based on some apparently ideologically driven criteria ... See Mayor van Zettens' opinion piece in The Examiner JUNE 2020. 

Anecdotally, as a 'public investment', the CH Smith carpark is failing to deliver the income projected for it but that is another matter. Reports of low usage abound. When this 'Council' puts on its developer's hat, and plays with tax and ratepayers' money, it's competency to do so is questionable on the evidence. Let us not even mention the issue of ‘social licence’ here.

If public monies are being risked a rigorous public consultation cum assessment cum engagement strategy needs to be in place. Basically, untrained minds playing roles that they are ill-equipped for, even untrained for, and who take their own processes as valid for all, and their asserted self judgments being deemed as absolute truth, the outcome is typically nothing more than hubristic risky business. It is so albeit ever likely to be contested and vigorously.

All this being said, the really big question left hanging is to do with 'accountability'. It is well understood that when 'government' makes a monumental fiscal mistake it is their constituency who pays – not the perpetrators. In an elected representational mode of governance – such as the British Westminster system – it is said that it is a matter for election time and arguably we have seen that played out in Australia quite recently. 

However, if governance and management gets to be 'blended' as is sometimes the case in Local Govt., 'election time accountability' is something more than imperfect. Typically high stakes players walk away with extraordinary benefits to see them right and well into their next life – whatever that may be. Even here, the blighted constituency, in the vernacular, is left to 'carry the can'. It has been argued elsewhere that Tasmania's 1993 Local Govt. model is broken – and arguably beyond repair.

In Tasmania in recent times two Councils were placed under administration because they were "dysfunctional". So, by what criteria was 'dysfunctional' measured there and then. Likewise, when was the cost deemed to be inappropriate, with what measuring device and at what point?

SECTION 65 of the Tasmanian Local Government Act 1993 is supposed to ensure that a Council's elected representatives make strategic policy and planning decisions  on expert advice. In practice, and typically, what might pass for 'expert advice' cannot actually be assessed objectively albeit that it might be asserted to be totally appropriate. When ideology comes into play expert advice's 'veracity' can only be assessed subjectively with 'risk levels' being elevated and unintended consequence ever likely. SECTION 65 in reality offers constituencies no realistic guarantee of best practice decision making.

If the yardstick for 'dysfunctional' is to be measured fiscally it needs to assessed at arm's length. On past criteria the responsibility for that falls to the Minister for Local Government. Thus aggrieved constituencies are left to lobby the Minister to take action in order to protect their interests.

Ultimately, the situation is what it is! However, does that mean that 'elected representational democracy' demands, ideologically, that a constituency has to live with it until 'hell freezes over'?

As is the ECHOway we are developing this post out in

the open and if you have something to say or add please use the

COMMENT SECTION BELOW

Car Park Super continues to fight for Paterson Street development after council rejection Alison Foletta By Alison Foletta Updated June 3 2022 - 3:09pm, 

The future of the old Birchalls car park on Paterson Street will soon be the subject of two separate legal fights as a developer looks set to take the City of Launceston to the planning appeals tribunal. ................... Car Park Super's refusal to sell the land to Creative Holdings as part of a $90 million creative precinct proposal ended up in the Federal Court, where a decision is being appealed on June 24.[Why would an investor want to dispose of a viable ongoing dividend yielding asset?] ................... READ MORE: City of Launceston move to refuse development application for Paterson Street................... In the meantime, Car Park Super's attempt to have a multi-storey car park built on the site was rejected by the council this week, and will likely be appealed in the planning tribunal. ................... The council has long backed plans for a creative precinct alongside the Birchall's site, and had plans to convert the car park into a bus mall. [On what criteria?] ................... The City of Launceston received a $10 million grant from the federal government for the creative precinct as part of Build Better Regions Round 4 ,and paid a $1.2 million bank cheque, or 10 per cent deposit, on the car park in July 2020. [Ostensively as drought relief funding for a drought Launceston did not experience]................... Yet since then, the proposal has significantly dragged out, with the latest problem for the council being another looming legal challenge following its decision to reject a multi-storey car park on Thursday. ................... Landowner and Car Park Super developer Don Allen said the council had completely missed the point in rejecting the proposal for a multi-storey car park on the site. ................... The council on Thursday voted down a planning application for a multi-storey, multi-use development in Launceston's Paterson Street based on the fact it featured too many car park spaces. ................... Councillors mostly supported the recommendation to refuse the permit. ................... Councillors Tim Walker and Paul Spencer voted against the recommendation. ................... They argued that the council had to follow guidelines when sitting as a planning authority and agreed there were too many car parks in the designs and did not support the future of Launceston as a sustainable, pedestrian-friendly city that didn't have "cars circling the block for parks". ................... "It is not just a building for what we need now, it is a building that can be converted into what we need for the future," Mr Allan said. ................... This is in relation to the solution given by ARTAS to have higher floors for one of the car park stories so it could be converted in the future if no longer necessary. ................... Principal architect Scott Curran spoke for the permit at the council meeting and his words were reiterated in a statement from ARTAS Architects. ARTAS was advised that this would result in a recommendation to refuse the application which Mr Curran said during the council meeting. ................... It is not just a building for what we need now, it is a building that can be converted into what we need for the future. - Don Allan, Car Park Super ................... The solution they provided was to reduce the number of car parks to 124, however, ARTAS was advised the procedure would not allow the amendment and that ARTAS and Mr Allan would need to resubmit the plans with the new number of car parks. ................... During the council meeting, Councillor Rob Soward wanted to focus the debate on following the strict procedure they are adhered to when sitting as the city's planning authority. ................... "If we walked around and spoke to people about this and increased parking, there would be a perception that that's a good thing," he said. ................... "There is a bit of a Bermuda Triangle around that because when you drill down into the dark, it's a myth." ................... Cr Soward said emotion doesn't come into this and that council must follow the rules. ................... Mr Allan said they are considering appealing to the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, the state's newly renamed planning appeal authority, who they believe is likely to overturn the council's decision. ................... Previously Car Park Super was taken to Federal Court by Creative Holdings in 2021 over a sales contract for the car park on 41-43 Paterson Street, also known as the Birchalls car park. ................... A Federal Court found in favour of Car Park Super over the failed contract. ................... At the time, Federal Court of Australia Justice David said that "both the applicant and the respondent at various different times seemed to have lacked enthusiasm to complete the transaction". ................... Car Park Super stated it had never intended to sell the car park. ................... The Australian government had committed $7.5 million under the Community Development Grants Programme towards the precinct as well. ................... Under the BBRF Round 4 grant opportunity guidelines, funded projects must be completed by December 31, 2022, with all funding expended before June 2023. Extensions may be considered on a case-by-case basis.