COLLIER QUESTION

 J COLLIER QUESTION

 COUNCIL QUESTIONS

Amendment 66 - Specific Area Plan Over Land at 123 Paterson Street, 125-13 Paterson Street and 270 Brisbane Street (CT151150/3, CT 151150/2 and CT175274/1)

Given Susie Cai and her family, in good faith and having belief and confidence in the Tasmanian legal process, spent approximately $63,000, most of which was borrowed, lodging an Appeal with the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal against the original Gorge Hotel proposal, an Appeal which proved justified as the Tribunal upheld that Appeal and overturned Launceston City Councils approval for the project.

Given the Cai family also suffered a profit loss through having to close their Restaurant on three occasions to attend the Appeal hearing in Hobart will Launceston City Council make an ex gratia pavement to the family to compensate them for their original costs in mounting that Appeal, …especially as Council now appear to be doing their utmost to thwart the Tribunal’s decision and the Cai family may now, if this SAP is adopted, be forced in to lodging yet another Appeal all because the JAC Group and Council refuse to accept the RMPAT ruling from the initial Appeal?

Is this Specific Area Plan a typical case of a spoilt child not liking the umpires decision so let’s get the rules changed, or maybe a case of bully boy tactics with the rich and powerful ganging up on the weak and less well off to get what they want?

At this Council Table is at least one person with first hand knowledge of just how the rich and powerful can attempt to exert their influence to achieve their own ends and there are many other examples in Tasmanian history such as with the Gunns Pulp mill saga so this sort of thing can and does and happen.

So while keeping that in mind is Launceston City Council working hand in glove with developers to facilitate a hotel development in Launceston which has already been rejected by the Resource Planning and Management Appeal Tribunal which concluded clearly and unequivocally, in respect to the original Gorge Hotel proposal:

• the building height is not compatible with the streetscape and the character of the surrounding area.? Do Council realise the considerable amount of emotional and mental distress the Cai family have, and are still, suffering due to the Planning amendment they will soon be debating, …is Council aware they are dealing with real people here who should have been given a sizeable compensation package by Council and the JAC Group to atone for the pain, suffering and financial loss they experienced in respect of their original Appeal?

IF Launceston City Council really wants to support and encourage small business owners, such as the Cai family, should they not be treated significantly better than they have been?

Has Launceston City Council been in collusion with the JAC Group in respect of the drafting of this Specific Area Plan and can you assure the community that no inducements of any kind have been received by elected representatives, or Council staff, to facilitate this planning amendment; …ratepayers and the community are very concerned and cynical in regard to this whole process?