BREAKING NEWS CITIZEN VICTORY IN A CARPARK

 When one prays one often wonders if the GODS are there and if they're listening. For years now Joe & Mary Citizen in Launceston have been the victims of what might be understood as Machiavellianism as their representatives at Town Hall twisted and turned to give this or that 'developer' a free kick at ratepayer’s expense. The assumption being that they, the Councillors,  were elected to make decisions and that many Councillors were there simply to endorse the aspiration of the few – all too often the aspirations of management. Well, that's how it has looked.

Well, lf they, the GODS that is, must have been listening when one citizen refused to be walked all over to suit the personal aspirations of some at Launceston’s Town Hall and in the days ahead their excesses will no doubt be revealed for all to see.

 

THAT SAID, WHAT HAVE THE GODS DONE! Well, the serial and surreal behaviours of the city's LAST COUNCIL have been exposed for what they are and were. Seriously flawed and entirely inappropriate it seems!  

 

In a NUTshell their, the Councillors’, somewhat Machiavellian decision to deny a citizen the opportunity to protect his investment and manage his property as he and his family saw fit has been found to be seriously flawed. Indeed, it seems that Council's actions, and it officers’ advice,  have been found to be something more than seriously flawed!.

 

The way is now clear for Donald G. Allen, Director Carparks Super Pty Ltd to do just what aspired to do and get on with building his NEW CARPARK at Paterson Street Central. 

 

Happy New Year Mr Allen!

 The following noteworthy and highlighted comments from the tribunal's decision are:   

 

•... The sole reason for refusal by the Council was that the proposal would not comply with clause E6.7.1.3 of the Launceston Interim Planning Scheme 2015, which limits on-site parking within the Central Business District Parking Exemption Area. 

 

•... Notable is that the Tribunal records at 29. The objective of E6.7.1.3 is not to prevent or reduce on-site car parking within the Launceston Central Business District Parking Exemption Area, but rather to limit it. 

 

•... 52. Mr Brook did not undertake an assessment against the criteria in E6.5.1 P1. .– Plainly that approach is wrong. .

 

•... 56.  While Mr Burgess’ evidence was interesting with respect to philosophy of city design, it was of little use in the assessing of the proposal against the standards in the code. 

 

•... 61. Ms Ramm said that Launceston was heavily reliant on car use. .. that 75 per cent of workers in Launceston travel by car and only 2 per cent use public transport. ... there was still a need to provide parking for the majority of people who choose to drive. 

 

•... 63. The Tribunal accepts Ms Ramm’s evidence that during the day on and off-road parking is in short supply in the area of the site. 

 

•...  65. .... given the demand for parking in the area the Tribunal is satisfied that the additional 25 spaces will not exceed that provision [of Table E6.5] The proposal will comply with clauses E6.7.1.3 P1 and E6.5.1 P1.1 and P1.3. .AND 

 

•... 66. Accordingly, the decision of the Council to refuse a permit should be set aside and the Council directed to grant a permit. .

 

COMMENT: Don Allen on behalf of Carparks Super Pty Ltd, owners of the Paterson Central Carpark property are as follows: 

 

Mr Allen said that on behalf of the owner of the property “He was pleased and relieved to receive the full endorsement by TASCAT which has come after years of wrangling with Council since an even-larger multi-storey carpark was approved by Council for our Paterson St site, and over a year since the present application was submitted to Council.” 

 

He said “ the Company was now free to consider the use and development of its property with freedom and without coercion, and firmly believed their sensible mixed-used development involving retail shops, car parking and residential apartments, was in the best interests of the area, retail traders and the Launceston community at large.” 

 

He thanked the direct support he has received from the central business community and for the solid advice and assistance from experts who guided the application and subsequent appeal proceedings to a successful conclusion. .

 

This matter was preceded by lengthy and somewhat expensive actions conducted over the past 3 years and two previously reported legal battles in the Federal Court where the owners successfully won against claims by Creative Property Holdings Pty Ltd and City of Launceston Council (Second Respondents). 

 

Joe & Mary Citizen have every reason to crack a bottle of something as the GODS have given the tribunal exquisite guidance to a citizen seeking what can only be called 'natural justice' despite anything a 'silk' might say.

 

Arguably the City of Launceston has been delivering less than transparent and accountable governance fo quite a long time. More of this when what we might think of as 'Town Hall carrion' gets to be picked over in coming weeks and months.

WATCH THIS SPACE!