PlanningAlerts

12 Comments

Create an account or sign in to have your say by adding your own comment.

1. Reference DA0383/2014
   To the planning person or department concerned,

   I strongly object to the destruction of the cordial factory or any other part of the CH Smith building.
   As this is an important part of Launceston's history, it should be incorporated in any new development, whilst keeping the facade on Charles street.
   Launceston's history was a major part of my decision to move here from the mainland in 2003, unfortunately little by little I have been seeing small pockets destroyed for the sake of, often ugly, developments that don't blend in with the city's history.

   Yours sincerely
   Jean Chapman

2. To Launceston City Council
   Re: DA0383/2014

   I am horrified that this original factory/warehouse/ and possibly an original commissariat- store building is once again being contemplated for demolition. In the original DA it was to be saved and developed and it should still be retained. It is visible in many old photos and paintings and may be older than is known.
   It is as important to this precinct as the C H Smith buildings if not more so due to its age.
   This whole area holds beneath its rubble a history dating back to the earliest days of white settlement as shown by the archaeological dig carried out a year or so ago.
   I do not believe that in this day and age with the technology and materials available that it still cannot be saved. It is an important component of the early history of the wharf area having been built in the 1830s according to available records.
   I believe that the only other building of that ilk and era left in the city is Macquarie House.

   Sincerely

   Angela Prosser-Green

3. I am lodging an objection to the proposed demolition of the 1830s warehouse on the C.H. Smith site. The building is one of only a few remaining from that period and as such represents a significant piece of colonial heritage. To destroy the building would be to demolish a piece of living history. No doubt the building is greatly degraded and needs substantial work but rather than seeking to destroy it all avenues of restoration should be followed.

   Regards
   Geoff McLean

4. To the Mayor and Aldermen
   Launceston City Council
   -----------------------------

   I wish to voice my objection to the demolition of the cordial factory building at the C H Smith site at Canal Street.

   Whilst the site has been allowed to deteriorate over the years the Council has made no effort to my knowledge to encourage the preservation and stabilisation of the building site. What a wonderful heritage site it could be if developed. Or Art Colony for example.

   Look around our city and see the wonderful buildings and the preservation and development ... this site should be preserved for posterity like Macquarie House, the Glasgow / Jacksons buildings, our wonderful post office and tower and many other buildings.
   please give this careful consideration for the future generations to see.
   ANNABEL TYSON

5. We strongly oppose this application. The CH Smith Building is an early and irreplaceable piece of Launceston's built heritage - and this heritage is the future of the city. Demolishing for short term profit will not aid the city's immediate future but will prevent a more sympathetic redevelopment of the site that retains the building in the future when there will be more tourist demand for visiting places near the river. Further, this sort of industrial heritage represents an important link to Launceston's past as a seaport. We find this application almost unbelievably callous and short-sighted. It demonstrates no real appreciation of the city that its residents have a right to love. Again, the built-heritage is Launceston's major asset re tourism and lifestyle and no further demolition of historic buildings should be permitted.

   Michael Quinlan and Laura Bennett

6. Regarding DA0383/2014

   To the Mayor and Alderman of the City of Launceston

   I earnestly request the Council not to approve the demolition of the "cordial factory" as part of the C.H. Smith redevelopment in Canal Street.

   This building, while currently in poor repair, is one of the more significant structures in this important military and wharf precinct of Launceston, dating from the earliest times of the built settlement. It is capable of being preserved and protected in any new development but if the Council allows it to be demolished, it will be lost forever.

   I respectfully request that the Council require the developer to amend their development application so that the fabric of this building is maintained, while it is incorporated into the new development to support the economic development of the City.

7. To the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Launceston

   Re DAO383/2014

   I strongly oppose this application to demolish the 'cordial factory'.

   The 'C H Smith' precinct is of paramount importance to the early history of the European settlement of Launceston and in its entirety should be sympathetically restored, so as to promote and enhance the colonial heritage of our beautiful City.

   Progress with Prudence.

   Gillian Morris

8. To Launceston City Council
   Re DAO383/2014

   I wish to strongly object to this proposed demolition of the 'cordial factory'.

   I question the assertion that there is no feasible alternative to demolishing this building.

   I tender these examples of preserving and conserving original historical fabric within a modern development as feasible alternatives: 3 Victoria Street, Hobart where the Tasmanian Heritage Council approved plans for the 1820s Macquarie's House to be enclosed within a large office tower block development and Coop's Shot Tower in Melbourne Central.

   Overseas examples include the Clarkson Gordon Building in the Brookfield Place Complex,Toronto, Canada. The heritage property's facade was disassembled stone-by-stone, restored and reconstructed in order to be incorporated as part of a galleria. The National Museum of Singapore has a new building which acts as a glass case enclosing the facade of a heritage building.

   The Heritage Architect states that the heritage values will be largely lost if reconstruction was attempted. How so? I question this broad and unsubstantiated statement as well.

   It is alarming that this building has been allowed to deteriorate over recent months to the extent that it has.

   An agreement is an agreement and should be honoured.

9. To the Mayor and Aldermen of Launceston,

   I strongly object to the application to demolish the Charles Street facades. They are prominent buildings that maintain important and characteristic streetscape near the edge of the City centre, and they represent one of the few large remnants of our early commercial waterfront.
   They are in the same style and comparable date to the much admired and preserved warehouses in Salamanca Place in Hobart. They happen to be built of brick with stucco render and not of stone, but that is the characteristic material of our city.
   Launceston is more admired by its visitors for what it has kept than for what it has allowed to be demolished. In that, it resembles Paris in France and Bath in England, albeit on a much smaller scale. Launceston has had many serious losses since the 1950s, many replaced by unbuilt spaces (mostly car-parks) or by buildings of little character. The more of these we accumulate, the more Launceston will come to resemble every other suburban strip in South-Eastern Australia. It will be of little or no interest to visitors, and no source of pride to its citizens.
   Central Hobart has thoroughly destroyed its historic atmosphere, except for its conserved treasures. Launceston is more intact, despite its losses, and our realistic economic future depends on our past as well as on continuing development.
   Long neglect has become an excuse for demolition of things that we should preserve. It is not beyond the wit of good architects and engineers to maintain these facades and integrate them into a development that will enhance our city. It is up to the firm commissioning the project to recognise this.
   Yours sincerely,
   Dr Eric Ratcliff OAM

10. I also object to any proposal to demolish the Canal Street building, a characterful relic of our early waterfront that can be made a prominent landmark at one of the gateways to the City centre. It can enhance the interest of any adjacent development, making it less of an object to drive past and not take notice of.
    The disputed site has a number of buildings worthy of conservation - Plain Colonial, Early Victorian/Regency, Art Deco and Edwardian (Federation).
    Dr Eric Ratcliff OAM

11. To the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Launceston

    Re DAO383/2014

    We strongly object to the proposed demolition of the C. H. Smith facade.

    In Kevin Newman's words (Examiner, 12 March, 1992):

    'Our heritage is precious' and 'When times are tough and jobs are scarce it is hard not to let a building be destroyed, because the immediate argument about jobs and new development are very persuasive.' He went on to argue that often a building that appears derelict and beyond redemption can be saved. 'Launceston has a reputation as one of the most authentic 19th century cities in Australia.' The city's character is precious and can be 'regarded as an Australian historical gem and a tourist Mecca.' 'The envy of Australia and indeed the world!'

    Think twice before knocking it down - you can't put it up again.

12. I wish to object to the proposal to demolish the old 'cordial factory' in the CH Smith complex. Bricks made in the 1830s were often of poor quality but this building is one of the oldest in Launceston and should be retained if at all possible. It is a reminder of the very early days of settlement when this area was of great importance to the economic and maritime activities of the fast-developing town. The whole CH Smith complex has the potential to be of great interest if developed appropriately so that it could become a most welcome introduction to the city.
    

Have your say on this application

You're too late! The period for officially commenting on this application finished over 9 years ago. It lasted for 13 days. If you chose to comment now, your comment will still be displayed here and be sent to the planning authority but it will not be officially considered by the planning authority.

Your comment and details will be sent to Launceston City Council. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment