116-128 Cimitiere Street Launceston TAS 7250

Visitor Accommodation, Food Services, General Retail and Hire, Community Meeting and Entertainment, Hotel Industry, Signage, and Vehicle Parking - Construction of a hotel and mixed use development involving partial demolition of existing buildings and new road accesses located at 116-128 Cimitiere Street, (22 Tamar Street), 130 Cimitiere Street including adjoining area of private right of way, 132 Cimitiere Street, through to 136 Cimitiere Street, all in Launceston.

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website 23 days ago. It was received by them 6 months earlier.

(Source: Launceston City Council, reference DA0506/2019)

5 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Allan Miller commented

    Hi Iain,

    I am guessing that the time we have to look at this starts from when the docs become available ? At the moment it simply says "Internal server error, and it cannot be displayed"

    https://onlineservice.launceston.tas.gov.au/eProperty/P1/PublicNotices/docget.asp?KEY=424706&DANUM=DA0506/2019

    Cheers,
    Allan

  2. Allan Miller commented

    I am writing to object to the Hotel Development proposed for the Cimitiere/Tamar/William St site in Launceston, DA0506/2019

    After looking through all of the docs, it seems that the developer has made a good attempt to reuse the heritage buildings, but the sheer bulk of the building/s is just too great to disguise.

    In the application the developer seems to acknowledge that it is far too big, in that they say the current plans attempt to “break the apparent bulk of the proposed building into smaller units”. I would argue that it has simply created what looks like a ad hoc pile of boxes. If the “Bulk of the proposed building” was within the planning schemes maximum height, there would be no need to try and disguise the fact that it is way too big.

    Too big as in nearly 3 times the maximum - 12m is the planning scheme maximum, and this is taller than 40m.

    Indeed this is higher than the ill fated Gorge Hotel (which was knocked back on appeal largely because it exceeded the planning scheme’s height limit).

    The size also becomes apparent in that the smaller heritage buildings around the edge of the big pile will be dwarfed and overshadowed from all angles. The ones along Cimitiere St will most likely never see any sun at all - and I wonder if this would be an issue for the buildings on the opposite side of Cimitiere St as well.

    It is simply too big. Even at half the size, it would still simply look way too high looking over the smaller surrounding buildings, i.e. The Rankin & Bond building may as well not even be there !

    Some of the other smaller buildings, along Cimitiere St especially, don't seem to fair well in the plan either - the Heritage listed 1931 addition to the Harrop building, whilst technically still existing, is mostly gone. The R/S part has a giant door cut into it (so basically the whole facade is gone) and the L/S of it has a series of long modern windows cut into it - considering it is a listed building I am not sure that Heritage Tas would agree to that. If they did, it would set a scary precedent - anyone with an unwanted listed building could just take 99% away, leaving just a token pillar. I suspect they would have a fight on their hands if they did agree that was a good modern look for the building. Maybe a better idea would be instead of “in filling” the “gaps” along Tamar St and or William St. with ill fitting modern buildings, why not make that already occurring gap the entrance ?

    On the subject of creating more doors - the proposal should be commended for retaining the windows & doors of the original Harrop building, but the addition of an extra door will change the look of the building. Considering the door is already on the corner, we are only talking about a few metres - the extra door should also be knocked back by Heritage Tas. , or put somewhere away from the facade were it doesn't impact on the on the look of the building.

    Just finally - I should just add (just in case someone reads this in the upper realms of govt) that these kinds of largely administrative matters should really be put on hold during a declaration of a national and state disaster - to expect that people during these times of crisis and mass unemployment have to find time to defend their cities from developers wanting to make $s is unreasonable. I realise that is not a council issue, but I am adding it anyway. If this gets over the line because people are too busy defending their families and livelihoods to put in submissions, than there is a major problem that needs addressing asap.

    Cheers,
    Allan

  3. Katrina Hill commented

    I am writing as I have several concerns about the Hotel Development proposed for the Cimitiere/Tamar/William St site in Launceston, DA0506/2019 (other being advertised when people are preoccupied with a pandemic!) however I am not opposed to it (and I appreciate the adaptive reuse proposed and the architectural aesthetic).

    1. With continued conflict/discussion about an absolute height limit in Launceston no applications should be making statements that they comply . Or that they are 'fitting in' with the character of the city. It could be misconstrued that an outcome (on absolute height limits) is being withheld to benefit developers rather than protect the city and its character.

    Also. Using "absolute" building heights (of existing structures) which include spires and towers (which are decorative and not of any mass) implies that this interesting and delicate skyline character can be added to by this new hotel. The telecommunication tower never went through any approval process and had three top floors added later when they failed to demolish a adjacent heritage building. It was never intended to be that tall. The things that were done to destroy the heritage and character of the city in the 70's and 80's are well remembered. And the Gorge hotel was knocked back (so should not be used for comparison)

    2. Pedestrianization about vehicle movements (my major concern).

    The footpaths along Cimitiere and Tamar are EXCEEDINGLY shallow (and thin) and have no street furniture to stop people making entry onto a very active set of roads. Cimitiere St. is a transport corridor and will have heavy vehicles operating (which tourists may not be aware of).

    In particular, the conference centre would likely see MANY people enter/exit within a short period of time (where visitor accommodation would not) which could easily see spill over onto the road. (Also, please note, as someone who has navigated the inner-city space at night cars are not necessarily within the speed limit in the CBD).

    This needs to be addressed BEFORE development starts not after and the rate payers of Launceston should not have to pay for it.

    3. Parking and traffic (the biggest issue for the community and developers)

    The CBD parking exemption code was never intended to apply to such a HUGE hotel. To say "no parking in required" is silly. People must park somewhere. Tasmania in general has a poor public transport system and car rentals, for Northern Tasmania, are quite high (by design).

    Making a statement about arrivals i.e. "some will arrive by taxi" is not evidenced based. No indication is given of percentages of people who currently arrive in which mode to the Grand Chancellor or the Casino (for example) which would be good examples. This information would be good to have.

    Hobart and Launceston operate VERY differently. Hobart hotels as 'assessed against' examples (height, car parking, transport modes and traffic movements) is not reflective of Launceston behaviours. There are accommodation entities and conference spaces in Launceston and they could be assessed against.

    Finally.

    The intended road system changes by State Government and the University of Tasmania inner-city relocation (including their car parking) are not inconsiderable and will alter the current operations in that area. Utas has had a lot of trouble working out traffic solutions and they will not be wanting tourists parking in car parks (close to the campus) intended for their students after such a difficult and long process to find a solution (do not assume students will cycle, walk and come by bus....as much as this will be encouraged and prefered).

    Thank you for your time.

  4. Lisa Walkden commented

    I am writing to object to the Hotel Development proposed for the Cimitiere/Tamar/William St site in Launceston, DA0506/2019

    This proposed addition is ugly. It is bulky and the tow8rr excedes the limit height for Launceston.

    Although it seems that the developer has made a good attempt to reuse the heritage buildings, but the sheer bulk of the building/s is just too great to disguise and it has simply created what looks like a carbuncle of boxes.

    If the “Bulk of the proposed building” was within the planning schemes maximum height, there would be no need to try and disguise the fact that it is way too big.

    Too big as in nearly 3 times the maximum - 12m is the planning scheme maximum, and this is taller than 40m.

    The size also becomes apparent in that the smaller heritage buildings around the edge of the big pile will be dwarfed and overshadowed from all angles. The ones along Cimitiere St will most likely never see any sun at all - and I this would be an issue for the buildings on the opposite side of Cimitiere St as well.

    With all the attendant issues with a pandemic planning applications should be suspended during this time because really who has time to look at all the documents for this huge application and have a cogent argument.

    I agree very much with what someone else has written and have copied some of their ideas but I totally agree that this is too huge.

    It is an inappropriate architectural design that has been designed using computer aided software by someone in another state and that's not really take into consideration Launceston architecture delicate designs and environment.

    Kind regards
    Lisa

  5. Lisa Walkden commented

    I am writing to object to the Hotel Development proposed for the Cimitiere/Tamar/William St site in Launceston, DA0506/2019

    This proposed addition is ugly. It is bulky and the tow8rr excedes the limit height for Launceston.

    Although it seems that the developer has made a good attempt to reuse the heritage buildings, but the sheer bulk of the building/s is just too great to disguise and it has simply created what looks like a carbuncle of boxes.

    If the “Bulk of the proposed building” was within the planning schemes maximum height, there would be no need to try and disguise the fact that it is way too big.

    Too big as in nearly 3 times the maximum - 12m is the planning scheme maximum, and this is taller than 40m.

    The size also becomes apparent in that the smaller heritage buildings around the edge of the big pile will be dwarfed and overshadowed from all angles. The ones along Cimitiere St will most likely never see any sun at all - and I this would be an issue for the buildings on the opposite side of Cimitiere St as well.

    With all the attendant issues with a pandemic planning applications should be suspended during this time because really who has time to look at all the documents for this huge application and have a cogent argument.

    I agree very much with what someone else has written and have copied some of their ideas but I totally agree that this is too huge.

    It is an inappropriate architectural design that has been designed using computer aided software by someone in another state and that's not really take into consideration Launceston architecture delicate designs and environment.

    Kind regards
    Lisa

  1. Have you made a donation or gift to a Councillor or Council employee? You may need to disclose this.

  2. Please use your real full name if possible.

  1. We never display your street address. Why do you need my address?

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts