Local Governance and Intellectual Property in Tasmania: REPRESENTATION/0108

From: Ray Norman <

REPRESENTATION DA O108/2022 ALBERT HALL

Firstly, it should be noted that I come to be making this representation as a consequence of my research relative to CULTURALlandscaping at the confluence of two rivers and an estuary –kanamaluka TAMAR. Here, the significance of Albert Hall in that context is incontestable. It was not my intent to make a representation but my research and its circumstance presents me with compelling reasons to do so.

It also needs to be noted, that I have been denied reasonable access to the documentation that pertains to this development on the grounds that this material was/is restricted under some assumed provisions of the Copyright Act. This assertion is highly contestable – and arguably flawed. This too must be contested given that the assertion bears all the hallmarks of ‘truth by assertion’. And it bears no resemblance whatsoever to the ‘fair use’provisions of the Copyright Act – See Australian Society of Authors . Moreover, a case may even be mounted that once this class ‘authorship’ is presented for ‘public scrutiny’ it exists in the ‘public domain’ and thus denying access to it could well be tantamount to discrimination – and consequently a denial of natural justice.

Moreover, much of the bureaucratic assertion’s so-called veracity appear to be founded on an Act invoked in 1993that could not possibly anticipate 21^st C technology, the current ‘climate emergency’ and shifts socio-political realignments etc. globally. Council, apparently assumes 20^th C provisions are applicable albeit that that they are by-and-large redundant albeit apparently bureaucratically convenient.

Against that background I draw the following conclusions based on articles in the press, alternative professional advice from several sources and that of components of the membership of the Albert Hall’s Community of Ownership and Interest as opposed to stakeholders exclusively – those with ‘skin in game’ in the vernacular. In this context the City of Launceston as ‘developer’ has squandered its assumed social licence and moral authority.

In its ‘colonial context’, as a structure, on a ‘flood plain’, Albert Hall and its immediate landscape, City Park, is essentially an exemplar of 19^th C Eurocentric CULTURALlandscaping deeply embedded in the ‘colonial imperatives and sensibilities’ of its time – and it as it is. It was built in this location on a set of 19^th C Eurocentric assumptions that been proven wanting at the very least.

On one hand this needs acknowledgement yet on the other it, in the building’s ‘redevelopment’, 21^st Cimperatives need to be interrogated in that 21^st C context given that the circumstance and ‘cultural realities’have, on the evidence, changed and shifted significantly.

Indeed, given that the proponent/developer here is the ‘City of Launceston’ there is something more than a ‘need’ for Council, when acting as a ‘Planning Authority’ , to be not only be acting on ‘expert advice’ – SECTION 65 Local Govt Act 1993 – but appear to be acting upon ‘independent expert advice’ for the benefit of its constituency. The case for that being the case in this DA is extraordinarily thin!

Henry Ford apparently believed that GOD was managing his affairs and that GOD did not need advice from him. So with GOD in charge one might believe everything will work out for the best in the end if one assumed GODlikepower. Therefore, in that case there is nothing to worry about.

So, Henry Ford’s belief in GOD assured him that she/he/it would provide. In this case, it might turn out to be drawing a very long bow but there it is to be drawn!

The Apparent Flaws in this Development Application – DA O108/2022

1… Energy Provision: Any attempt for this building to be ‘significantly energy effective’ in a 21^st C context is by-and-large absent. That this might be the case in 2022 and against the mounting evidence globally is tantamount to Council abdicating its role as a ‘planning authority’ in a context with any contemporary currency.

If sought, the evidence and the exemplars of mindful and sustainable ‘civic development’ internationally abound and it appears to be the case, for whatever reason, that none of this has been taken into account. So, what would be reasonable to see in this instance now:

Solar hot water for the purposes of food hygiene, personal hygiene, cleaning and space heating given the need relative to purpose and function;
Solar electricity for the purposes of lighting, air conditioning, battery charging for onsite portable equipment and general usage;
Wind generated electricity for the purposes of solar power backup;
Geothermal power for the purposes of space heating and cooling; and
Collectively such an investment in energy provision being something in the order of 30% at least of the building ‘projected energy needs’ albeit that a greater percentage would/could be achievable.

Who would benefit from this class of investment? Firstly, the proponent’s, the developer’s, own constituency given that the cost saving flowing from the investment and perhaps more to the point the benefits flowing from mitigating the impact of the ‘climate emergency’ that Council has already adopted as a policy imperative – albeit so far without discernible proactive action.

2… Water Management: Any attempt for this building to sustainably manage water supplies and its ultimate dispersal to the environment in a clean condition is apparently absent and possibly a non-consideration. Internationally, there are exemplars where all INCOMEwater is managed and used on site and only leaves the site in a ‘drinkable condition’.

Moreover, currently in Australia there are exemplars of this class of sustainable water management in operation with one example in a domestic off-grid, away from a civic water authority context, in an urban situation in central Sydney dating back to1996. If meaningful research was to be undertaken no doubt great many more will have followed in its wake and might well be taken into account in current planning process – but NO.

Furthermore, there is a regional airport in Queensland that claims to be achieving such an outcome and any kind of credible research would surely expose other exemplars. Clearly in this instance, arguably that class of research has not been engaged in given the imperatives of some kind of distorted in-house development approval processes.

Additional to all this, planning provisions is some European cities – apparently London currently– mandate this class water management. Furthermore, in Australian cities – Brisbane – have in place stormwater management regimes where water must be disperses ‘slowly’ to the environment and consequently waterways in the cleanest possible condition – not so in Launceston and indeed the converse.

Clearly, this DA does not meet 21^st C needs in a 21^st C context.

3… Waste/Resource Management: Any attempt for this building to sustainably manage ‘recourse recovery’ on site is undiscernible albeit that it is the case that on this site there are ideal opportunities for that to be planned for. If any consideration at all have been given to this issue the evidence for it being so, is quite opaque and undiscussable – and sadly so.

As is the case with ‘water management’ it seems that the assumption that the ‘status quo’ pertains and is ‘fit for purpose’. If that is the case and it is being put in the second decade of the 21^st C it beggars belief and indeed calls into question ‘the expertise’ the GMN/CEO is required to ‘guarantee’ in accord with SECTION 65 of the Local Govt. Act 1993.

Clearly, this DA does not meet 21^st C needs in a 21^st C context.

4… Cultural sensibilities, hygiene and toilets: Any attempt for this building’s redevelopment to address these concerns in a 21^st C multidimensional, multifaceted cultural context seems to have been addressed in the most cursory, out of sight, out of mind way. The provision of such services cannot be avoided. Nonetheless, how and in what context they are provided is of supreme importance in a 21st C context.

Given the intended purpose and function of the redeveloped building this is a major flaw and one that for whatever reason is being overlooked in the context of the status quo. 19^th/20^th C colonial Eurocentric sensibilities and cultural realities no longer apply.

In the 1980’s Launceston along with Rockhampton were identified as Australia’s least culturally diverse cities. While factually that might not have been the case in fact, peri-colonial Eurocentric sensibilities did prevail and in many ways aspects of it linger.

Nonetheless, currently cultural diversity is much more apparent and especially so in regard to tourism and the student cohort living in the city. Additionally, Launceston’s multicultural migrant and refugee population has become increasingly culturally diverse given the diversity of’ belief systems in evidence. Plus, increasingly professional services are being provided by non-European culturally diverse providers – particularly evident in regard to medical professions.

Why is this significant here? Quite simply the once one-dimensional cultural realities that seem to linger in this DA are no longer appropriate or relevant and especially so in regard to this DA in the current circumstance relative to the diversity of ‘cultural realities’ in evidence.

Clearly, this DA does not meet 21^st C needs in a 21^st C context.

4… Environmental impacts and sustainability : Any attempt for this project in an overall context to meet and address 21^st C sensibilities in regard to environmental issues and concerns are not evident. For instance the planning aims to remove a relatively large number of trees and reportedly trees that have achieved ‘full expression of their form’. Typically planning processes in Launceston deem such trees to be of no interest/value to this or that ‘authority’ on this or that evidence.

This bureaucratic paradigm pertains despite Council declaring a ‘climate emergency policy’ and subsequently failing to proactively pursue it and accordingly implement projects. Noticeably in this instance trees are deemed ‘expendable’ despite all that is invested in them and all that trees have to offer in the context of environmental infrastructure. Launceston in this regard can be characterised as environmental delinquent – if not vandal.

Councils refusal in the past, and apparently here too, to implement a dollar value system and/or an offset system is palpably recalcitrant in a 21^st C context. It is especially so in this instance given that Council is both the proponent and the authoriser set against the most opaque consultation processes.

Even within Western 19^th/20^th C cultural ‘wisdom’ it is recognised that the secret of getting ahead is quite simply getting started. It follows that the secret to getting started is breaking down otherwise overwhelming tasks into smaller manageable projects, and then get busy on the first one. In Launceston we might begin to deal with the need to achieve a 30% plus canopy cover by judiciously protecting every single tree or replacing it 10 fold in another urban space if removed for any reason.

Clearly, this DA does not meet 21^st C needs in a 21^st C context.

OVERVIEW: I submit that this development in a 21^st C context is deeply flawed and by-in-large that is due to the lack of independent expert advice sought and applied. The City of Launceston being both ‘the proponent and the authorising authority’ is blatantly blighted in its lack of independence and the lack of cognisance of the perception that it is the case.

In the case of other DAs presented to Council it is often stated that the class of sustainability conditions – those flagged here – are unenforceable approval in the context of ‘planning law’. In regard to ‘ this project’ the proponent should be embracing conditional requirement and it would be perverse to say they would be unenforseable. That is they would be unenforceable if they went to appeal. Hear, Council is unlikely to perverse enough to appeal its own self-imposed conditions of approval.

Against this background there are compelling arguments for approval to be postponed or curtailed in order that arm’s length independent expert advice is sought, considered and applied to a significantly improved proposal that fits 21^st C circumstances. Moreover, once such advice has been sought it needs to be tested in a meaningful consultation process before being presented for self-approval given that by any measure this DA emanates out of a fundamentally flawed process.

Ray Norman – Cultural producer, Researcher, Cultural Geographer and collector of Deep Histories relative to Cultural Landscaping.

Ray Norman

<zingHOUSEunlimited>

The lifestyle design enterprise and research network

Please reply to: raynorman7250@gmail.com

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

I acknowledge the First Peoples – the Traditional Owners of the lands where we live and work, and recognise their continuing connection to land, water and community. I pay respect to Elders – past, present and emerging – and acknowledge the important role Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people continue to play within the research zingHOUSEunlimited undertakes.

REPRESENTATION/0108

No comments:

Post a Comment