14-16 St Georges Square East Launceston TAS 7250

This type of opportunistic approach devalues the neighbourhood by diminishing the amenity values. So called "infill" removes gardens and green spaces, increases population density, produces tiny lots with little if any gardens, often attracts cheaper rents which often bring associated problems, the only beneficiary is the developer who makes a quick buck, whilst all around pay for the rest of the lives.

I have seen numerous examples of this behaviour, and see nothing but rubbish. Furthermore I have seen single storey houses approved to become 2 storey houses, with longtime neighbours shaded and views blocked, powerless to avoid the development which diminishes their amenity and devalues their asset.

When will the LCC see reason?
See what is reasonable, and what is unreasonable...

Re DA0115/2019: The proposed removal of the 1870s brick perimeter wall associated with the heritage listed property, ‘Torkington’ (formerly ‘Fair View’) would significantly reduce both the heritage value and the character of the St. George’s Square/High Street precinct. The current run of wall in front of 14-16 St. George’s Square, and sections in front of lots 18 and 20 together contribute significantly to the streetscape, providing an insight into the original character of the large properties surrounding the Square and adding to the heritage values and visual amenity of this precinct. The loss of the run of wall along lots 14-16 would leave only short isolated sections, removing all context and sense of scale of the original properties (a factor exacerbated by the proposed design choices for boundaries of the two lots – a solid masonry wall for lot 14 and a wrought iron railing fence for lot 16.)

This area is highly visible from a very popular public space, and its streetscape is described as ‘the most significant feature of this precinct’ in the heritage survey for Launceston National Estate Conservation Study prepared by the City Architect and the Planners Department of the Launceston City Council in 1977. I urge the council to protect this wall – rather than allow this historic precinct to die the death of a thousand cuts.

I would like to add my concern that the Historic fence that encloses the properties that has been a historic part and a beautiful visual feature of St George's Square is to be demolished .
I'm also concerned that the house on the property that is a good example of mid-century modern architecture is not being refurbished but demolished to allow the building of a no doubt Boxy S group designed dwellings.

Re DA0115/2019: I wish to express my concern that yet another piece of Launceston's beautiful architectural history is deemed not viable. I am also deeply concerned that the correct image of the 'fence' that is to be demolished and replaced is not contained in the Planning Alert. I am quite sure that if residents realised it was in fact the beautiful 150 year old red, brick wall that was to be removed, rather than the unattractive modern fence pictured, there may be a few more complaints to this development application. The fence pictured is actually in Scott Street, not St George's Square. Whilst there is no doubt a place for modern design, it should not be at the expense of what is intrinsically 'Launceston', and this unfortunately, is becoming all too common.

This block has already been subdivided and sold quite recently as far as I know - presumably it will continue to be chopped up until nothing more will fit.

I think the wall should be retained (at the least) and possibly the current 60s house could also be of architectural interest ? Do we know if it was built by anyone of note ? It would have to be one of the more impressive of its era around Launceston.

Already Bathurst St opposite the brickfields has been ruined (used to be c1880s and federation houses - now a giant car yard) under the current watch, it would be nice to keep some historic features opposite St Georges square.

Just to save people from having to troll through LCC to see what wall is being discussed - it is on page 8 of this:

https://onlineservice.launceston.tas.gov.au/eProperty/Publicnotices/407985/Advertised%20Plans.pdf

Cheers,
allan

Re DA0115/2019 Launceston City Council
I have serious concerns that this application has not addressed the issue of the two Sequoi trees that are on the adjoining property at the rear of 16 St Georges Square. Since the new development will be only 2 meters from the rear boundary, this will compromise the survival of these trees.

These trees are currently listed on the National Trust Significant Tree Register and are over 120 years old. They are much more significant than the trees identified on the Development Application. Due to their enormous size, works around their root system will not only have an impact on the trees themselves but on the surrounding property foundations as well. I understand an arborist's report has been prepared regarding the work intended on block 16 which concludes that the trees will not survive the proposed works. The death of these trees will impact all the surrounding properties.

On the heritage side the death of these trees will be a significant loss as there are very few sequoias of this age and size in the Launceston area and will impact the visual amenity of this area.

DA0115/2019 -14-16 St Georges Square EAST LAUNCESTON TAS 7250

I am concerned that the above application doesn't consider the impact of the proposed development on two heritage listed Californian Redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens) on an adjacent property (https://trusttrees.org.au/tree/TAS/Launceston/Torkington_554_Ann_Street)

The size of these trees (30+m) means that the setback from the boundary is insufficient to avoid damage to the root systems which will likely kill the trees.

The loss of the trees will significantly affect the visual amenity of the area as well as threatening the life and property of the proponent and neighbours.

I believe one of the neighbours already has an arborist's report which may indicate what changes are required before approving the DA

RE: DA0115/2019.170
The property in question on the corner of St Georges square and Scott Street, has a boundary wall built in the early 19th century, from locally made wire cut bricks, laid in what is known as 'Common Bond' - that is, double brick Flemish Bond, with added 'header stretcher' tie-in courses. The design of the wall with its columns and capped pilasters is a legacy to the talents and skills of 19th century architects and bricklayers, and an integral part of the historic ambiance of St. Georges Square.
Any proposal that would suggest the demolition of this iconic structure is a self indulgent whim on the part of an investor who has obviously no regard for, or interest in, our city's heritage. The proposal should be totally rejected. St. Georges Square, and the pleasure that it offers with its open space, mature trees and and 170 year old boundary wall, belongs to the people and ratepayers of Launceston, and not to any property developer.

This development application, and in particular the proposal to demolish a very substantial amount of 150 yr old brick wall, is in my opinion, page 1- step 1 from the profit-above-all developer handbook. Buy a property with recognised heritage/character value that is obviously in need of maintenance or repair and then apply to knock it down. Alternatively, sit back and wait till it falls over then build what you want anyway.
If the council allows this sort of development scenario to proceed, then it will be open slather for unscrupulous developers. The built heritage that brings tourists to Launceston and the resultant long term economic benefits to the entire community, will be gone forever.
In addition, I find it hard to believe that any architect of note wouldn’t want to incorporate a wall with that amount of character into a new design. Admittedly the wall needs repair, but it is a straightforward process, carried out on vastly more substantial structures worldwide on a daily basis. I believe the photos and data contained in the DA, illustrating how much the wall is out of plumb, are cynical in the extreme.
Again, the council needs to draw a line in the sand or this type of development will flourish, to the detriment of all but the few who seek to profit from it in the short term.