LETTER FROM THE MAYOR

Click above to enlarge

CLIMATE EMERGENCY POLICY: City of Launceston clearly does not know what to do next

IF you follow 'the science' as each day passes you discover that someone somewhere is actually doing something about implementing a policy that requires action and change.

Local governance is front and centre when it comes to the class of 'cultural landscaping' that is required to develop sustainable communities.

In Tasmania, the rhetoric so, so, often flows thick and fast as do the promises relative to being committed to change for the benefit of the planet, future generations, whatever. However, if you look for evidence on the ground beyond the rhetoric you are not likely to find anything of substance.

Yes, yes you'll be pointed to a 'policy decision' but not to an exemplar of its implementation.

Please click on nan image to enlarge

 

READ AN ABC NEWS ITEM 2019  … CLICK HERE  

WATVH A VIDEO VIA THIS LINK … CLICK HERE 

LISTEN TO THIS ON THE SCIENCE SHOW … CLICK HERE 

Bureaucratic Recalcitrance at Launceston's Town Hall

Please click on an image to enlarge 

DA 31 Brisbane Street Launceston DA| 0464/2021

VIDEO LINK https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n48kjR-we_E

CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Introduction 

This Development Application (DA) brings into question several aspects of Tasmania’s planning processes and specifically so when its interpretation and implementation is ‘entrusted’ to Local Govt. Typically, a DA is oversighted by a General Manager (GM) who in turn “guarantees in writing” that Councillors/Alderpeople are making ‘determinations’ as a ‘Planning Authority’ upon the advice of people who have the appropriate qualifications and experience to enable them to give such advice to Councillors – those approving or rejecting a DA. 

Notably, as advised by the Director of Local Govt., the Act is silent on the necessary ‘qualifications and/or experience’ a GM, in compliance with SECTION 65 of the Act must have in order to assert that she/he can in fact make such a “guarantee” with veracity. 

SECTION 65 is quoted below: 

• 65. Qualified persons 

(1) A general manager must ensure that any advice, information or recommendation given to the council or a council committee is given by a person who has the qualifications or experience necessary to give such advice, information or recommendation. 

(2) A council or council committee is not to decide on any matter which requires the advice of a qualified person without considering such advice unless 

(a) the general manager certifies, in writing 

(i) that such advice was obtained; and 

(ii) that the general manager took the advice into account in providing general advice to the council or council committee; and 

(b) a copy of that advice or, if the advice was given orally, a written transcript or summary of that advice is provided to the council or council committee with the general manager's certificate. 

This DA has aspects to it that bring into question a range of considerations beyond ‘stock standard’ developments in the urban cultural landscape that arguably have significant impacts upon the wider community and well beyond the precinct within which it is located. 

Councillors, as ‘community representatives’ will need to consider these issues carefully before granting approval – or indeed denying approval. 

In the event that Councillors are in anyway unsure of the veracity of the advice they have before them they might well consider ‘leaving the DA on the table' until such time they can be ensured that they have all the appropriate advice.

In this instance, IF Council is disposed to decline approval of the DA what alternative options are open to the proponents to provide the much needed facilities it proposes in the Launceston Municipality? As always there is a multiplicity of choices and the Council along with the proponents might well seek advice from the University of Tasmania's School of Architecture. Within that school there has been an ongoing research program focused upon flexible accommodation for 'young people at risk' that arguably would have application to the issues at hand and potentially direct application if approached with an open mind.

It is not within the scope of this representation to discuss this issue beyond alerting Councillors to UTas Research in the area of concern that is at hand. Council may wish to broker an appropriate development as happens in other jurisdictions. 

For further information please se the links below.

[LINK] • [LINK] • [LINK] • [LINK] • [VIDEO] 

CULTURAL CONSIDERATIONS

This application comes before Council in the context that the building is 'Heritage Listed' and the developer proposes to change its use to one where it accommodates and institution charged with managing young people in a socially distressed circumstances. 

All things being equal the building might well serve such a purpose. However, 'the site' is somewhat problematic in that it lacks conducive outdoor amenity and most specifically any 'green space' on site for unsupervised 'activity'. Given the social cum cultural circumstances and the 'social stressors' the cohort of 'clients' this development aims to serve that is problematic.

It has been asserted that the lack 'space and outdoor amenity' can be overcome and offset given that the building is sited across the road from a generously spaced city parkland. While this may be the case it also poses risks and the potential for unforeseen outcomes. 

One set of risks related to the risks that the 'client cohort' might well be exposed to in such a 'public place' alone and indulging in the kinds of activity they need the 'space' for.

Another set of risks are to do with 'the public' being exposed to, confronted with, this 'client cohort' in a stress filled situation. Such situations are ever likely to present themselves and totally avoidable if the 'facility/institution' provides the necessary amenity on site.

Measuring the risk factors here requires the professional expertise of a social scientist – social welfare professional, anthropologist, cultural geographer. If 'Council planners' have not, or have not been able to access such advice, Councillors in their 'planning authority capacity', arguably would be acting without the advice SECTION 65 sets out to provide them with.

In the end, locating such a facility as one being proposed is one where 'cultural landscaping' become a primary consideration and that aught not be ignored.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

Despite there being no specific reference to the tree on site in the DA, it is there and it is significant from various perspectives. From a heritage perspective it is an important component of the cultural landscape that 'the property' is an important component of. It offers visual amenity to the precinct and thus it needs protection.

Any approval of a development needs to make 'this tree's preservation' a component of approval. While it is claimed that Council in its capacity as a 'Planning Authority' has no power to preserve this tree and moreover it is also claimed that the developer can currently remove the tree without 'Council approval', 

As a planning authority Council can place any conditions upon a development it sees fit. Only a recalcitrant developer would wish to challenge that 'authority' and/or appeal it Council's decision outside Council. If it is determined that say the tree is important in respect Council's much touted 'Climate Emergency Policy' Council should be following its own strategic initiative.

In other jurisdictions councils operating as a 'Planning Authority' they place high values on trees and especially so relative to mitigating climate change and visual amenity. The City of Launceston would do well to be seen to be proactive in maintaining, or rather enhancing, the city's urban spaces' vegetative canopy cover. SEE ATTACHED GRAPHIC

In other jurisdictions councils operating as a 'Planning Authority' they have set a percentage of canopy cover that needs to be maintained – typically at least 30%. Launceston's cover is somewhat less than that. Moreover, my advice from Town Hall is that the city's 'Planning Dept.' is disinclined to follow other jurisdictions' 'planning imperatives'.in this regard irrespective of the city's 'Climate Emergency Policy' . SEE ATTACHED GRAPHIC

In other jurisdictions councils operating as a 'Planning Authority' have set a dollar value, and thus a free for the removal of a 'tree' – typically between $500 to $2000 plus – with these funds used to plant trees at other sites to offset the carbon cum amenity loss. Again, my advice from Town Hall is that the city's 'Planning Dept.' is disinclined to follow other jurisdictions' 'planning imperatives' in this regard and one officer was quite antithetic to the proposition despite the city's declared 'Climate Emergency Policy'. Given Council's strategic decision relative to the city's 'Climate Emergency Policy' . SEE ATTACHED GRAPHIC

In summary it is quite clear that the city's 'development imperatives' up to now have been careless of, and disinclined to be mindful of, Council's Climate Emergency Policy. Given developments internationally council needs to proactive in implementing its the city 'Climate Emergency Policy'  – no ifs, no buts!

CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE

CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE

RAY NORMAN

LAUNCESTON RESIDENT AND RATEPAYER

LETTER FROM LAUNCESTON GM/CEO MORAL RIGHTS

Click on an image to enlarge

Dear Michael, Albert & Danny,

Thank you Michael for your response and I accept that you might wish this matter to be closed but your position is nonetheless contestable. It appears that you are relying upon advice that you deem to be adequate and appropriate. And yes, I have been advised that the Local Govt. Act authorises you to do so.

Nonetheless, Copyright and Moral Rights Legislation is a matter that falls under Federal jurisdiction. You make assertions that are contestable and given that, you can expect that they will be contested and possibly at ratepayer's expense. Thus, your position must be challenged.

Three obvious points:

1.  An author cannot sign away her/his moral rights in respect to a work of their authorship. It is simply not an option available to them. Nonetheless, Council might well choose to treat their work in a 'derogatory way' BUT in doing so Council cannot continue to claim the 'sullied work' to be that of 'the author'. 

The 'marketing consequences' of such an action is clearly diminishing not only to 'the city' but by extension to its citizenry. Quite apart from anything else, it is exceedingly poor marketing.

2.  In regard to the Council’s YOUtube Video ‘The 1929 Launceston floods’ and its lack of acknowledgement to contributing 'authors et al', it needs to be noted that the Tasmanian Archives & Heritage Office is not the only 'authority' in respect that 'work' that needs/requires acknowledgement. 

In any event you offer no evidence that the Tasmanian Archives & Heritage Office have approved and in what context. There is certainly no indication of that on 'the work itself'.

3.  In regard to 'acknowledgements' in Council’s various publications, you may well be satisfied that you are overseeing an operation that is appropriately compliant. However I submit, compare just about any one of Council's publications with a daily newspaper and a 'independent critical eye' will surely provide you with sufficient evidence to challenge your assertions and complacency.

Those points made I will now seek further advice in the cause of 'cultural producers' receiving appropriate consideration based upon expert advice.

Regards,

Ray

Ray Norman

<zingHOUSEunlimited>

The lifestyle design enterprise and research network

eMAIL 1: raynorman7250@bigpond.com

40 Delamere Crescent Trevallyn TAS. 7250

WEBsites:http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com

 “A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.” Thomas Paine

“The standard you walk past is the standard you accept” David Morrison

Letter from the Director

 

Click on the image to enlarge

Dear Mr. Limkin,  [Director Local Govt. Tas].

RE: Compliance with Tasmania's Local Govt. Act 

Thank you for your correspondence yesterday. Together with your previous advice to me, increasingly the evidence is that the Tasmanian Local Govt. Act 1993 provides, and increasingly so, less and less protection for ratepayers and citizens as time passes. 

Given your advice here that essentially ‘expert advice’ need not be backed by appropriate qualifications and experience given the Act’s silence/silences this is a wondrous proposition. I submit that it is a ‘creature’ of its own making that ought not be allowed to either exist or persist. 

Here it appears that ‘the Act’ intended to provide ratepayers and citizen’s with the security of a ‘professional guarantee’ based upon appropriate professional qualifications and experience. Given your advice, that can only be an empty provision. Given your advice, ‘the Act’ is rendered meaningless consequent to ‘the Act’s’ silence/silences. It appears to me that a General Manager can deem her/his advice to be ‘expert’ on her/his own cognisance and apparently it is absolutely, or functionally, unchallengeable. This takes ratepayers and citizens into perilous territory. 

By comparison, if a General Manager was to offer ‘professional advice’ – either personally or via a consultant – to Council in regard to say epidemiology relative to COVID-19 management, given your advice, it seems that ‘expertise’ can be based on any expertise a General Manager deems relevant – informal, professional, non-medical, whatever. Is that actually the case? Is that actually your advice to me? Is that in the end a credible proposition? 

Perhaps if a private citizen had unfettered access to extraordinary resources it might be the case that advice, flawed advice, advice that could be demonstrated to be flawed could possibly consider a challenge. In any event claims of level playing fields appear somewhat hollow.

Your advice previously that in order to initiate a claim of discrimination in Local Government one needs to go well beyond the ‘work place’ thus rendering one’s, a perpetrator’s, accountability functionally discretionary. In recent times we have seen such propositions relative to discrimination and harassment in other jurisdictions being contested and sometimes leading to compensation. In Local Govt. a litigant is in essence suing themselves and the expense of it escalates with every step. .

Therefore it seems that the law is indeed an ass as Dickens told us when in the eye of the law; when the law supposes that a wife acts under her husband’s direction … IF the law can suppose that, the law is indeed an ass … indeed, idiotic. Likewise, the ‘fiscal bar’ can be levitated, or floated, to whatever level –higher or lower – required to protect management’s interests for whatever reason. Typically, it seems, facilitated by SECTION 62/2 of ‘the Act’. 

Managers in the bureaucratic paradigm of Tasmania’s local governance bitterly resent the challenges ‘the citizenry’ might bring to their paradigm – their turf, their fiefdom. To them ‘outsider thinking’ is a personal affront and especially so when it is ‘informed and evidence based’. 

To challenge the protectors of the ‘bureaucratic world view’ is a challenge to those who have made themselves ‘masters’ beyond their actual authority, often beyond their expertise and many times beyond their qualifications. Typically, they manage to penetrate even glass ceilings with extraordinary ease. They become entities that are no longer public ‘servants’ as they expect, rather demand, obedience and compliance – and concerningly they are authorised penalise non-compliance. 

These unelected, unrepresentative ‘masters’ flaunt and exploit the folly of ‘representational democracy’ in its 21st C reality. They have come to accept into their houses only knowledge that is translated into their terms: within their belief systems; to fit their ideologies; to match their knowledge bases. This should not be accepted, for constituencies, communities living out cultural realities, know that to accept that rationality, and its subjectivity, it will betray all that they have struggled to put into words and build a cultural landscape that over time will generate new worlds – new realities, new opportunities. 

My complaint on this occasion was evidence based, and that was provided. Most importantly my intention was in parallel to garner a better understanding of the status quo in Tasmania’s local governance. These days, every time I use that term, Ronald Regan comes to mind albeit that I do not share, never have shared, his ‘world view’. I rarely think of him, and almost never kindly, but he did give us one truism … “status quo is quite simply Latin for the mess we are in”. In this, I find myself in furious agreement.

I dare say that there will be other occasions upon which I will seek your advice. However, please know, that your illumination of ‘the Act’s silences’ and its trickledown effect has led to a much better understanding. 

Yours sincerely, 

Ray Norman 

Ray Norman 

zingHOUSEunlimited

The lifestyle design enterprise and research network 

 eMAIL 1: raynorman7250@bigpond.com 

Trevallyn TAS. 7250 

WEBsites:http://www.raynorman7250.blogspot.com 

“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.” Thomas Paine “

The standard you walk past is the standard you accept” David Morrison https://raynormanadvocate.blogspot.com/

WHAT IS OLD BECOMES NEW BECAUSE ...?

NB ... SATURDAY, MARCH 26, 2016 ...http://tasratepayers.blogspot.com/2016/03/what-kind-of-flooding-is-launceston.html

What Kind of Flooding Is Launceston Actually Planning For?

Currently there is quite a lot being speculated about and quite a bit of is impacted upon by the city’s infrastructure. That infrastructure is somewhat impacted upon by the city’s geography and the ‘spectre of the 100 Year Flood’ is an important element of that. Not too far away from that is the “health of the river”. It has been claimed that the river’s current state is not too far away from “open sewer status”.

At election time this kind of discussion inevitably becomes an ‘Urgent Issue’ – that is until the next election. In the meantime planning seems to go on as if all this was simply a peripheral interest. Over the years many of ‘the big issues’ have been put to one side but time is catching up.

In the post-industrial circumstances the city is now in comes the question, what is the city’s future? In the city’s changing circumstances what role will education and training play in the potential service industry future? As has always been the case in Launceston, post settlement,, just how well will its geography serve the city for the imaginings attributed to its ‘the future’?

Then come the questions about what are in fact the long term plans for the city and what informs them? Who is planning what for Launceston and on what information? These maps may provide an insight into the realm that is before ‘the community’ and assist in some way in contextualising the questions that now need to be asked in the context of an open dialogue.

IT TURNS OUT THAT TOWN HALL IS DEVELOPING AND ITS NOT PLANNING ... There is a 'Manager of Development' not a 'City Planner' and we wonder why the city is in trouble.

“In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.”

Napoleon Bonaparte