8 Lord Street Launceston TAS 7250

I think that Councillors should agree to the demolition as long as it can be stipulated that any further development on the site should be a replacement house on the same scale. We need homes for people, which they can aspire to own. 'Rentals' serve the needs of some people, and serve the needs a larger group: investors. Housing should not, in my view, be in the hip-pocket of investors. Instead it should be there for those who need a place to live in... the 'Great Australian Dream'. Anyone remember?

Sadly, Australia’s unique heritage is being eradicated on the whims of developers. Yes, we need development, however it should be balanced with maintaining our unique Australian built heritage (as a young country, we have precious little of this already). Moreover, most new development uses inferior materials and quick/shoddy methods to maximise profit. Demolishing a unique house like this, with period features (likely made using hardwood timber and traditional craftsmanship) to make way for something new does not make sense.

The home should be subject to a heritage overlay rather than being demolished. Please do not let another home with character and period charm be destroyed.

I often wonder what today’s construction will look like in 100 years time. I suspect the structures will look far more dismal than this property and that we may not be very proud of the architectural legacy that we are leaving behind. Tasmania needs to learn from the mistakes made in other states where slowly the intrinsic uniqueness of the built environment in that area is being eradicated to the point that you cannot pick what city you are in by looking around you. These increasingly rare relics of the past will one day be prized among younger generations for their traditional charm and character which we are now incapable of reproducing. This pattern has repeated itself world wide. Please consider that once each one of these period homes is lost, the link to the past and this country’s built heritage is lost forever. As a young country, there are already far too few of them remaining. As a full time Queensland renovator of homes, many of them heritage, I am sure that, with publicity, there would be somebody willing to take on this project and breathe new life into it for the generations to come. Already the tide has turned up here and “character” homes are in more demand and attract more buyers than regular homes. If you are targeting higher density, then allowing dual occupancy within the extension of these homes can aid in the financing of the preservation and provide additional housing as well. Please think long term and create a character filled city we can all be proud of.

Please do not demolish this beautiful character home. It can be extended and Re co dictions. It’s charm can still remain for all to celebrate the effort and skill that went into creating such an incredible building. It is important to maintain its sentiment and story.

There are plenty other spaces that can be developed, original beautiful homes like this should remain for the community as a record for years to come of Australia’s beautiful heritage.

I personally think it is a disgrace that the demolition of this dwelling is even contemplated. We are losing waaaay too much of our heritage through greedy developers and submissive councillors, when it comes to gorgeous cottages just like this one.
At the rate we are going there will be no difference, except on scale, between us and other overcrowded, highrise cities.
The magic of 'heritage' will be lost forever.

Why destroy Tasmania's heritage to line the pockets of investors and the LCC. Councils love development as every building is more money in the councils coffers. If one house is demolished and 4 built in its place that's 3 times more revenue that previously. lf it is to be demolished to help create affordable housing I cannot see how it will be affordable. If the owner paid for example $200k for it and that's highly unlikely in the affluent area its in and then rebuilds costing them $$$ the replacements still aren't affordable to first home owners let alone others.
Renovation even if spilt into two properties would help maintain its beauty and ensure we keep it and other properties of character in this beautiful city. Launceston is renowned for its beautiful houses and buildings, it's part of the charm that brings in visitors, even properties like this on side roads. Just because they aren't on the main road doesn't mean visitors miss them. Destroying beautiful buildings is destroying Launceston's soul.

As someone who has taken on the renovation and restoration of a similar home with substantial subsidence and damage I can say that this house would not be too far gone. The submission does include some pictures of the fire damage, but it is hard to tell how substantial it it is, but that is what insurance is there to cover.

Yes the lack of maintenance is unfortunate, but given that the new owner bought this house - without any fire damage - in October this year and that the price was rather low for the address, repairs look to have been factored into the price. The for sale listing speaks highly of the intact 'period features'. Yes there have been some changes to the rear of the building, but the street face of the . building is largely intact and original.

The house needs work and has sustained some damage. Repair the damage and restore the house, then build a new building in the back yard if you must, where it is out of site of the streetscape and will have less impact on the character of the city.

This home should not be demolished. The application only notes the place is not registered, it is in no means a heritage assessment of the property. The application fails to do this. It should be assessed for entry in the local heritage scheme.

I have a number of questions regarding the house:
*was it identified by the National Trust for protection in the 1990s?
*is the place in a precinct in the Launceston Heritage Study?
*have the staff of Heritage Tasmania provided advice on the heritage values of the building?
*why isn't the replacement building/s part of the application?
*How do neighbours know what will replace the property?

The consultant also thinks the house was built in 1915. It is much earlier according to assessment rolls, with 1922 alterations. There has been no effort by the consultant to research the stained glass windows. Who was the artist?

This application should be rejected.

How many more, incredible historic homes will have to be destroyed to possibly realise, there will be so many future citizens that will have a far less rich life because of the decisions that the council makes NOW..
think about that as you slowly become just another random city with no real soul.. people from all over the world come to Tasmania amazed at how these beautiful old homes are still cherished...
every one of these time capsules lost is another step closer to our cookie cutter future.
How incredibly sad

Why would Launceston city council allow our heritage to be demolished with so many unique buildings and character homes. These homes should be saved and restored or renovated for many generations to come. We’re all for progress and development but the right kind to keep this city’s unique and amazing architecture. Money might talk but history lasts forever.

This appears to be yet another careless & lazy application to dismantle the dwindling architectural heritage of Launceston, which is a city famed for it’s heritage buildings and is a drawcard for a city otherwise encountering the demise of bricks & mortar retail stores (as is similarly happening in many other cities)

There seems to be insufficient evidence to justify the demolition of the dwelling, plus there are no plans provided to show what the developper or owners intend to replace it with.

This demolition application is upsetting because this particular domestic building is a glorious example of early 1900’s vernacular and ought to have a heritage overlay on it, with the ability to build a modern extension at the rear of the dwelling in order to afford more living space required by families today.

The subsidence, lack of maintenance and fire damage evidenced in the application photos do not demonstrate adequate reasons for demolishing the dwelling instead of restoring and rebuilding. I have personally experienced much worse examples of subsidence and neglect in old homes in Launceston, which have been halted, remedied, rebuilt and re-engineered to withstand any future problems. For example, I once lived in an old brick home in Welman street which had suffered the collapse of its north facing external wall, which was rebuilt & sturdy.
If only this building could have been sold to new owners with a desire to actively bring this old beauty back to life. This era of housing is vanishing from Australian cities, to the detriment of our collective cultural heritage and affordable inner city housing.

A building such as this, with its fantastic, characteristic façade and proportions has been constructed from quality materials & construction methods no longer employed in contemporary building practices. These materials can be reconditioned and reused to preserve the integrity of the dwelling. The maintenance issues seem superficial and straightforward to repair. The house has also been standing some time with the charred wood under the house so the urgency and fire considerations in the application appear opportunistic yet cursory.

This house is a restorer’s dream, please help it live to see another family in residence.

The reasons given for demolition of this building are extremely cynical. The house obviously needed renovation and repair when it was purchased. The fire damage is only superficial and easily repaired, and the lack of security can be resolved by hanging a new door instead of leaving the house open.

If the council allows these beautiful character homes to be demolished by opportunistic developers, the heritage of Launceston will be lost forever and it will become a facsimile of every other mainland city.

The neighbouring property at 10 Lord St ,and this property by association, is listed in the Council's own heritage study commissioned in 2006. The study specifically the historic importance of these types of houses, and their combined value as a group to the streetscape.

"A fine example of the high quality late Victorian timber building that gives
Launceston much of its character. This building is part of a large group
of similar buildings that demonstrate the key style attributes with high
quality workmanship and detailing and often in groups in prominent
locations with views over the city.

The building has historic significance for its place in the major phase of
development of Launceston, aesthetic value for its fine form and detail,
some social value as part of the collective timber housing that makes
Launceston a desirable place to live and for its streetscape value. Each
building in this large group of houses is distinctive and adds to the
collective value as well as having individual significance."

Launceston Heritage Study
Site Inventory
August 2006

The application to demolish this residence should be rejected.

The application has failed to:
1. assess the heritage values of the property. The absence of a history of the house is alarming. There has been no historic research undertaken to determine historic heritage values and at which threshold: state/local. Former owners/occupiers and the original builder/architect have not been investigated/reported upon;
2. address the architectural values of the residence (or lack thereof) and provide a comparative analysis of similar houses in Launceston. Is this building rare, or increasingly uncommon?;
3. demonstrate the façade has been compromised. A walk past the property clearly provides evidence of an intact inter-war residence with a high degree of integrity;
4. investigate examples of buildings damaged by fire. Far more extensive fire damage occurred to Finneys in Brisbane St (2004), 1 Elizabeth St (c.2000) and 78 Canning St (1970s) to name a few. These buildings have been successfully conserved;
5. highlight the impact on the nearby residence of nationally renowned figure Rev. John West, anti-transportationist and newspaper editor. The demolition of 8 Lord St will negatively impact the character of the area; and
6. provide evidence of future intent for the block. It is argued that councillors could make a more informed decision if proposed plans were lodged simultaneously;

Councillors should also take into account the Robert Nettlefold v Hobart City Council precedent in RMPAT (2000) and Supreme Court (2001). An applicant requested permission to demolish a historic building not on a heritage register. Both bodies dismissed the application.