Recent comments on applications from Launceston City Council, TAS

  1. In East Launceston TAS on “Residential & Food Services...” at 6 St Georges Square East Launceston TAS 7250:

    Lisa Walkden commented

    A cafe will be a positive addition to the neighborhood. I am, however, concerned about the parking. Will the LCC rezone some adjacent parking from all day parking to 2 hour bays? This may have a negative knock on effect to on the ability for people to park in the area who walk to work. The long no parking bays for food vans, that are in them only in the evening on some nights, needs to be revisited if this development proceeds.

  2. In East Launceston TAS on “Residential - Construction...” at 14 St Georges Square East Launceston TAS 7250:

    Paul Osborne commented

    As per advertised plans:

    11.4.20 Streetscape Integration and appearance
    A3. (b) existing fence to be retaiined

    ...in actual fact it's proposed to put a gate in through the 150 yr old brick wall?

    Why was this application received on 18/12/18 but only advertised 20/2/19 with just 2 weeks for comments/submissions?

  3. In East Launceston TAS on “Residential - Construction...” at 14 St Georges Square East Launceston TAS 7250:

    Lisa Walkden commented

    The development will impinge on the historic feel of the area as the land is such a narrow piece that currently has an excellent set back with mature trees visible as one passes by.
    I am suprised a new dwelling is allowed so close to the existing house.
    The front historic fence should remain and the entry be on the Scott St side.

  4. In East Launceston TAS on “Residential - Construction...” at 14 St Georges Square East Launceston TAS 7250:

    Jenny Davidson commented

    My major concern with this application is the removal of part of the front fence which is an 1867 Victorian brick fence of significant historic value.Would it be possible for this not to be touched and a side entrance made instead as the side fence is just colourblind .

  5. In South Launceston TAS on “Manufacturing and...” at 27 Shamrock Street West South Launceston TAS 7249:

    Garry Stannus commented

    No, in my view, dwellings should be retained. People need homes. Homes should not be structures bought and demolished on 'Monopoly Boards'. People need places to live and they need to be able to own them.

  6. In Launceston TAS on “General Retail and Hire -...” at 80A-88 Charles Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Angela Green wrote to local councillor Danny Gibson

    You are all so correct in what you are saying but it is best to remember that Councillors do not reply to 'personal' letters. I don't know how to make them realise that the city is losing its heritage and uniqueness, and because of this will more than likely lose tourists especially those who are trying to get away from all the cement and highrise to seek clean air and a tranquil environment. We used to be known for our parks and gardens and all the beautiful trees. These too are disappearing.

    Photo of Danny Gibson
    Danny Gibson local councillor for Launceston City Council
    replied to Angela Green

    Thank you for alerting me to this.

    Regards

    Councillor Danny Gibson
    Deputy Mayor
    City of Launceston
    PO Box 396 LAUNCESTON Tasmania 7250
    M 0407 096 597 I www.launceston.tas.gov.au

  7. In South Launceston TAS on “Residential - Construction...” at 8 Leonard Street South Launceston TAS 7249:

    Lisa Walkden commented

    This corner is quite a busy one and having traffic entering from this area will create more congestion and near misses as the area is a very narrow Street
    the proponents should only have four units thus allowing for less traffic.
    this block is home to many native birds with mature gum trees attracting a lot of species into this area when they are in flower and during other seasons.
    With so little Bushland in the South Launceston area developments should be encouraged to leave existing native bush land and build sensitively allowing for the infill development which is very important but also making allowance for the wildlife that currently lives in these areas.

  8. In Launceston TAS on “General Retail and Hire -...” at 80A-88 Charles Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Paul Osborne wrote to local councillor Rob Soward

    It would be an extremely short-sighted decision to allow this shop-front to be destroyed. The reason that companies such as Michael Hill Jewellers are coming to Launceston, is to take advantage of the upturn in the economy. The main reason for the upturn in the economy is the increased amount of tourism in recent years, and the financial benefits that brings. By allowing Launceston's built heritage to be destroyed, you are removing one of the main reasons that tourists come here.
    Launceston's heritage buildings are an asset that the current Council has been bequeathed to conserve and protect. It would be short-changing future generations if it allows this heritage to be "developed" at the whim of those wanting to make a quick profit.

    Delivered to local councillor Rob Soward. They are yet to respond.

  9. In Launceston TAS on “General Retail and Hire -...” at 80A-88 Charles Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Tara Badcock wrote to local councillor Albert van Zetten

    The old Hatton & Laws pharmacy building is a beloved old treasure and could be treated with so much more respect and VISION than the proposed plans show.
    If the windows were not already boarded up I would gaffa tape myself to them to stop the demolition of the shop front in favour of a generic glass box with electronic doors...there are plenty of those already in Launceston and they’re so bland I rarely notice them or bother to enter the shops (filled with generic mass produced ‘product’)

    Launceston is running out of old gems like this which are visually interesting, elegantly constructed and embody links with an historical past as well as an architectural and cultural and artistic Australian Heritage. Visitors come to Launceston specifically because of the beautiful old buildings and quieter way of life. The council planners continue to ignore what a community finds interesting and holds dear, in the vain attempt at “Making Launceston Great Again” by approving developments that attempt to emulate their idea of what a Big Important City should look like. Yawn!

    If this shop front demolition goes ahead then Launceston really will justify its status as a destination not worth visiting (as featured in comedian Tom Gleeson’s spoof travel show segment “Go Away” https://youtu.be/32eKGFeoQeo )

    Hatton & Laws was the oldest continually operated pharmacy in Australia, on this site since 1848. I’m gobsmacked that it’s not a heritage listed shop front!!!
    This facade is a stunning extant example of 1920’s/30’s architectural shop front design and I’m atruggling to think of another example in Tasmania, let alone the rest of the country!
    To have this replaced with a generic, bland and soulless replication of what already exists in most cities is an insult to Launceston.

    As much as I do actually love some contemporary architecture which really responds to the Australian climate and the context of the site within which it sits, this old girl holds a special place in many people’s hearts & Complacency is not the answer!!!
    We must look after our cultural heritage because it’s what unites us as a community and gives us our unique advantage over other locations.
    And for a jewellery shop I would have thought the existing curved windows and stained glass and tiled design would have been a visual drawcard.
    Another example of lack of cultural respect and selfishness by a franchised retailer over what the local community holds dear.
    It breaks my heart.

    Delivered to local councillor Albert van Zetten. They are yet to respond.

  10. In South Launceston TAS on “Residential - Construction...” at 8 Leonard Street South Launceston TAS 7249:

    Ian Hodgetts commented

    Have real concerns around the introduction of extra traffic to an already busy narrow street especially with one entrance being right on the apex of a tight blind bend. Leonard Street regularly has a number of hospital staff cars parked which causes further congestion, and used as a short cut to Newstead and Kings Meadows by many. The introduction of 6 units with the possibility of 15 extra cars close to the very tight bend is a real safety concern. Many drivers speed down the street, cutting the corner, which is a real risk with driveways positioned right on the apex.

  11. In Launceston TAS on “General Retail and Hire -...” at 80A-88 Charles Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Mackenzie Gordon commented

    I am disappointed by the lack of forethought in retaining our cultural identity in this design. I live in Launceston and love it's heritage factor and that it has retained so many if it's old buildings and facades. This is what sets us apart from other cities. Yes modernisation has its place, but not at the cost of what makes us unique. I noted in one of the replies that the mall refurbishment was brought into it. They should note that residents have heavily cruised this refurbishment. The facade may not be original, but it is far more interesting than the proposed replacement. Please reconsider keeping our heritage intact, modernising and moving with the times should not mean erasing all traces of the past

  12. In Launceston TAS on “General Retail and Hire -...” at 80A-88 Charles Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Claire Richardson wrote to local councillor Janie Finlay

    What a disgrace!!! I wish I was appalled but this is just so typical of Launceston "progress jobs and growth," you've already put multiple full time employees on decent salaries out of work and shut down a great new Tasmanian restaurant with the owner leaving the state to accommodate 20 cars recently, why destroy the very heritage that is supposed to be a big part of our "tourism economy" for some smarmy franchise that won't last longer than 10 years if that? Think again Launceston.

    Delivered to local councillor Janie Finlay. They are yet to respond.

  13. In Launceston TAS on “General Retail and Hire -...” at 80A-88 Charles Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Karen Hewitt commented

    As a newly arrived Launcestonian (?) I am saddened that such a design would be sanctioned. Coming from a concrete and steel clone-a-city, I was really taken by the historical beauty that was preserved in the town, and that did play a part in helping us decide to move. Those windows are so gorgeous, I wonder what aesthetically-minded architect would have planned to remove them! Surely they would showcase whatever was to be retailed there - ESPECIALLY jewellery. Looking at the plans I can only comment that they turn what is currently a glittering gem of a site into a bland and boring frontage. Very easy to walk right on past. Heritage should be nurtured as a pathway to the past for any town, and why not strive for beauty in what you do? In this case striving is super easy - just leave what’s there alone!

  14. In Launceston TAS on “General Retail and Hire -...” at 80A-88 Charles Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Andrew D Alexander commented

    I would like to help the proponent succeed in Launceston without causing damage, and if these plans are passed in anything like the advertised plans then I would like my name to be among the names of people who spoke out. The modern showy and glittery design in the plans is something that could be a shop front anywhere from Shanghai to Las Vegas. That may be fine in a new shopping centre, but the problem here is the stripping away of the character of a corner that is different and interesting because it was built in another time and tells a unique story. This sort of intrusion into this city, if allowed, will have a profound effect on the city's culture and attractiveness: the rebuilt shop front would say something to everyone about what we would be - a city that doesn't care about remaining beautiful by keeping its old and interesting fabric, and a society, to its shame, not strong enough to remain different from everywhere else in spite of its rich heritage, and, incidentally, to its own eventual economic loss.

    There are clever and imaginative architects and designers in Tasmania who could adapt and modernise these central sites without stripping away charming details and without impositions that suggest superficiality. It is worth suggesting as a hint that working with the antique nature of the existing building would create, along with the vicinity, a happier and warmer ambience for selling jewellery to tourists and visitors than the proposal shown because of the pleasure of encountering something genuine and sympathetic. I recommend a rethink, but if all this falls on otherwise determined minds then we need to wait, because Launceston is rapidly being discovered for what it presently is, and if we preserve valuable details of our built heritage then people of taste and discernment will fill these spaces fairly soon and enrich our city in every way.

  15. In Launceston TAS on “General Retail and Hire -...” at 80A-88 Charles Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Jean Chapman commented

    I believe that the facade with the stained glass windows should be preserved. In my opinion there have been far too many demolitions and facade alterations in our historical city. People come to Launceston to see the remains of this beautiful city, not modern steel, concrete and glass boxes.

  16. In Launceston TAS on “General Retail and Hire -...” at 80A-88 Charles Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Ross Millar commented

    How disappointingly sad!
    Irrespective of the finer points of enforceable heritage overlays et al, this is an historic link to retailing architecture of the past.
    Simply beautiful, simply irreplaceable, simply what makes Launceston a city for citizens and visitors to marvel at, reminiscence and enjoy.
    As recent new settlers to Launceston, we walk around the CBD and are absorbed in the magnificent preserved architecture (unlike our previous Victorian city home).
    You have to wonder why the historic shopfront could not have been incorporated in a newer design to produce convenience, but still retain the essence of what inherently represents Launceston.
    The CBD needs features and this is and could be promoted as such.

  17. In Launceston TAS on “General Retail and Hire -...” at 80A-88 Charles Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Anne Jones commented

    How sad that a new business to Launceston would choose to disregard heritage features and fail to understand what it is that makes Australia’s third oldest city unique . What is even sadder and probably more disappointing, is that there appears to be no “body”, which cares to regulate new building and redevelopment with a desire for retaining quality craftsmanship and a sense of history . It is the skilful talent for combining the old and new which makes cities vibrant and inviting to both visitors and residents . Please do not let Launceston go down the path of homogenous and tasteless chain store facades.

  18. In Launceston TAS on “General Retail and Hire -...” at 80A-88 Charles Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Marion Sargent commented

    I am disappointed that the DA for this site was not released until after building works started. I am appalled that the beautiful and unique stained glass windows and tiles are not to be retained. I would like to know when the glass was supposed to have been replaced? Even if it is not the original 1927 glass it still has a place in Launceston's history as a reminder that the corner was once the oldest continuosly operating chemist shop in Australia. A chemist had been on that site since 1848, but the business was older than that. If it was possible to incorporate the heritage values of your building in Sydney, why not here? There are so few examples left: Chung Gon, F&W Stewart and The Umbrella Shop (partly replaced but still important). We do care about our history and unique character. We don't need to look like every other city. Tourists and locals alike appreciate our difference. Just because the Mall has new paving doesn't mean that everything else has to be modern and sterile as well. I am pleased that the awning and upper storey are to be retained.

  19. In Launceston TAS on “General Retail and Hire -...” at 80A-88 Charles Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Allan Miller commented

    And the reply from Michael Hill (for anyone interested) doesn't seem to show that they are very interested in compromise. I am not sure that he is entirely correct re window replacements etc either, but I will leave it to someone much more qualified than I am to tell him so.

    Interesting that he seems to think that the Mall upgrade (which no doubt will be replaced again in a couple of short decades) has set the precedent regarding the replacement of heritage with modern architecture too.

    Hi Allan,

    I have been sent your email from our online team and appreciate your interest in our newest store coming to Launceston.

    You are correct in that we are opening soon, in fact, preliminary site works have already started which is very exciting for us.

    I can understand your concerns around the heritage nature of the site, we have recently completed a refurbishment on a building in George St, Sydney that was built in the 1800’s with every heritage overlay imaginable, we embraced that with our designs which ended with a wonderful result for both Michael Hill and the City of Sydney.

    This particular tenancy currently doesn’t have any heritage overlays and from what we have been advised by the building owners, the under awning stained glass windows and curved glass façade have all been replaced and are not original. With this in mind and given surrounding recent tenancy fitouts and design we have opted for the store design you have seen on the council planning website.

    Having said that, our designer recognised that the above awning façade on not just our building but also the surrounding buildings were as you say intrinsic to the look of the downtown area and has opted to remain sympathetic to the surrounding sites by not altering that in any way.

    We feel that with the upper façade remaining, this will embrace the local area feel while the proposed under awning works will tie in with surrounding newer tenancies and also the recently completed modern upgrades to the Brisbane St mall directly opposite.

    As you can imagine, balancing both modern fitouts with older elements can be tricky but we all believe we have successfully fulfilled the brief on this site.

    We look forward to having our first ever store in Launceston and sharing some of our history and products with the Launceston residents.

    Thanks Allen.


    Regards,

    Brett Lancelot
    Manager – Projects & Design
    New Zealand | Canada | Australia


    P. +61 7 3114 3593
    M. +61 411 315 287
    E. brett.lancelot@michaelhill.com.au
    A.. 7 Smallwood Pl, Murrarie, 4172, QLD Australia

  20. In Launceston TAS on “General Retail and Hire -...” at 80A-88 Charles Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Jarad Murray commented

    As an immigrant to Launceston one of it's real charms is the character of the streetscape, especially around the CBD. Under no circumstances should the original facade of this shop front be allowed to be removed. The curved glass frontage and leadlight is of an era and should be SOOO easy to integrate into the design of any new shop. If anything, it will add to the facade.

    The council should seriously consider protecting the remaining original shop fronts to retain as much character in the city as possible. Is it possible to heritage list the facade of this building?

  21. In Launceston TAS on “General Retail and Hire -...” at 80A-88 Charles Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Anne Clifton commented

    The unique charm of Launceston is that it missed out on mass modernisation over the ages. This lovely building is special because of its corner position, curved glass frontage and leadlights typical of an era.

    It would be a shame to allow a ubiquitous 'outlet' frontage to replace/remove these features. I understand this business has a brand to convey. It seems as though its 300 other locations can adapt to its surrounds - why can't the architects make its 'Launnie' features part of their branding?

    Launceston is not like other towns. Nor do we need to be. We have character. Let us keep it, let us enhance it - not white it out with a corporate/bank like blank.

  22. In Launceston TAS on “General Retail and Hire -...” at 80A-88 Charles Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Allan Miller commented

    My message to the applicant, via their website;

    https://www.michaelhill.com.au/customer-service/contact-us?dwcont=C1761968745

    seems to sum it up.

    Hi - I have recently discovered that you are intending to open a store in Launceston, Tas ?

    I saw your plans for the original Hatton & Laws facade and was totally amazed that you intend to remove it.

    In Launceston this kind of heritage is looked upon as intrinsic to the city - unlike larger places where this kind of valuable history has already largely been lost. While the current council is not great with heritage, I would expect quite a public backlash if these plans are made too public. Locals are quite attached to their historic buildings !

    Do you have any plan Bs that dont include the ruining of the facade ?

    Please feel free to contact me, or ask for any other info.

    Here is a link to the proposal - which I am sure you will agree is very brutal indeed !

    https://onlineservice.launceston.tas.gov.au/eProperty/Publicnotices/398139/Advertised%20Plans.pdf

    Cheers,
    Allan

  23. In Launceston TAS on “General Retail and Hire -...” at 80A-88 Charles Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Lisa Walkden commented

    I was surprised to see recently that there was no longer a pharmacy and that this iconic corner of Launceston was vacant.
    The early 1900 facade with the hand made lead light glass stating that the pharmacy was once Hatton and Laws is a historical link back to the past.
    it's very attractive as it's beautifully designed and has been a feature of our city for over 100 years this is one of the few intact shop fronts in Launceston and must be preserved as a example of what our city once look like.

  24. In Launceston TAS on “Resource Processing -...” at 29-45 William Street Launceston TAS 7250:

    Susan McClarron commented

    I cannot work out from the online plans which 2 buildings are to be demolished. Could you please clarify?

  25. In West Launceston TAS on “Residential - Construction...” at 37 Wilhelmina Avenue West Launceston TAS 7250:

    Lisa Walkden commented

    This is a rich area of birdlife and I question whether the removal of all trees are necessary.
    The tall eucalyptus in the driveway area, in particular provides much habitat to native birds. Developers should be encouraged to keep these trees and work around them.
    The removal of these trees from the block will change the view of the hill and the ability of our urban areas to provide a living environment for existing flora and fauna.

  26. In Norwood TAS on “Residential - Construction...” at 11 Davista Drive Norwood TAS 7250:

    Jennifer lowe commented

    I am unable to get the planning for this block
    Can you please email the plan for this residential application

  27. In Prospect TAS on “Residential - construction...” at 62 Legges Crescent Prospect TAS 7250:

    Melissa Martain wrote to local councillor Danny Gibson

    We have nothing we were promised when we purchased our block. No playground in the park. No standard trees on nature strip. Certain street lamps. We were told only a few limited high market units clusters for retirees. We were also told and shown artists impressions of the street scape and told all homes would be of a similar value and size. This is a chaotic subdivision. Ppl that purchased were mislead. There has not been equality in the approval process. We have difficulties getting out of our drive. We have no line of sight and are at times blocked in. I have to walk the pram on the road as many residents park over the footpath. Why hasn't council enforced visitor parking for every unit and enough residential parking. Why have they allowed units to cut extra driveways. It is such a messy disorganized subdivision which should have been up something like mount Pleasant estate. The same draftsman has copied and pasted his designs from one block to the next. Right now as I type there are six cars parked across the street frontage of 62 and 64 legges. This is not what we paid for.

    Delivered to local councillor Danny Gibson. They are yet to respond.

  28. In Norwood TAS on “Residential - Construction...” at 14 Davista Drive Norwood TAS 7250:

    Maree Davis commented

    I would like to be able to look at the planning information for this application but when I click on the link it throws back an error saying nothing is available. Could you please email me the relevant application? Thank you.

  29. In Prospect TAS on “Residential - construction...” at 62 Legges Crescent Prospect TAS 7250:

    Kelton Zealley commented

    I can only concur with the previous comments here, and express my concerns at the already over crowded on street car parking situation at this location. With the already high number of rented units parking their own vehicles along the street, and the ongoing building works on the opposite side of the road , they are parking on half the foot path to give enough clearance for traffic flow, and impeding pedestrian traffic as well. Council really need to address this problem and stop approving multiple dwellings in unsuitable locations. I notice that to fit these units the rear setback appears to be less then the minimum, is this also not in character with dwellings in Legges Crescent. To Quote the Architect, "It is obvious that visitors of neighboring units park in the street" shows just how little understanding they have of the area, these are NOT visitors but the residents of other poorly planned/designed dwellings for the location.

  30. In South Launceston TAS on “Business and Professional...” at 39 Howick Street South Launceston TAS 7249:

    Lisa Walkden commented

    When trying to access the documents related to this DA application I cannot find the information. Link says there is an error and does not linked to any of the documents

    I'm very interested in knowing which tree will be cut down.

    There are some beautiful mature European trees and other native trees that are attracting many native birds into South Launceston
    Can you please contact me to let me know which tree or trees will be removed in this application

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