 |
| CLICK HERE FOR SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS TO TOWN HALL |
Dear Sir,
Submission to Launceston City Council, Public Meeting 7 June 2016 Proposed gift of land, formerly the Old Velodrome Track Site at Inveresk (Site 1), and formerly the Old Goods Rail Depot Willis Street (Site 2) Launceston.
I advise that I oppose the principle of LCC ratepayers gifting the above parcels of land to the University of Tasmania as they have requested for construction of university facilities because this land is presently utilised for income producing purposes for the benefit of effectively defraying the Launceston rate burden.
Site 1 is regularly utilised and leased out for Royal Launceston Show, car parking for York Park Stadium, visiting circuses and other travelling events, exhibitions (car & caravan shows) etc. Site 2 is utilised as a public car park and other events.this land has been identified by Council to be offered for private developments.
Site 1 has been mooted by YPIPA as being suitable for hotel/retail developments with parking as a support facility for York Park Stadium; as a site for a cinema complex.
Site 2 has been promoted by Council as being suitable for a multi-storey retail and apartment complex with parking (Council funded a comprehensive study and development concept plan at ratepayer expense;
- a large supermarket with car park facilities;
- in conjunction with the former Launceston Gasworks site significant multi-storey hotel developments have been proposed by private developers;
- Housing Tasmania has considered the site for public housing development, the adjacent car museum has expressed interest in acquiring part of this land for expansion of the National Automobile Museum
- this land presently supports major events in City Park (Festivale, TSO Concerts etc.) and Albert Hall Convention and Exhibition Centre (antique and trade fairs, gala ball and concerts, special events) as essential car parking.
Yours sincerely, Lionel Morrell
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Re: Submission to Launceston City Council, Public Meeting 7 June 2016
Proposed gift of land, formerly the Old Velodrome Track Site at Inveresk (Site 1), and
formerly the Old Goods Rail Depot Willis Street (Site 2) Launceston.
I advise that I oppose the principle of LCC ratepayers gifting the above parcels of land to the University of Tasmania as they have requested for construction of university facilities because given the location of the parcels of land, a university development of the scale and intensity as described in publicity issued by the University of Tasmania and Launceston City Council, shall:
• increase the pressure for public funding including ratepayer funding of flood protection measures and liabilities for flood damage to structures and their occupants (both site are located on flood plains that are not fully protected);
• increase the risk to buildings and occupants due to the relativity of the sites to known geological fault lines (expert geophysicists have already alerted Council to the serious risks of developments of this intensity and recommended that due to seismic evidence and risk factors, maximum building heights near these fault lines is 4 storeys and maximum occupation is no more than 200 people);
• increase the demands on public infrastructure such as water, sewerage and stormwater utilities and treatment headworks and outfalls; roads and bridges including foot and bicycle carriageways and bridges;
• cause significant increases in traffic and parking congestion and environmental pollution;
• place increased economic pressures on existing land and building users in the vicinity, by forcing up values and rents and pricing out of the market;
• create a potential ghetto environment and potential social downgrading of the area due to a higher level of low socio-economic residents in this vicinity.
Yours sincerely, Lionel Morrell
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Re: Submission to Launceston City Council, Public Meeting 7 June 2016
Proposed gift of land, formerly the Old Velodrome Track Site at Inveresk (Site 1), and
formerly the Old Goods Rail Depot Willis Street (Site 2) Launceston.
I advise that I oppose the principle of LCC ratepayers gifting the above parcels of land to the
University of Tasmania as they have requested for construction of university facilities because
given the location of the parcels of land, a university development of the scale and intensity as
described in publicity issued by the University of Tasmania and Launceston City Council, shall
• create an over-intensification of development of these two parcels of land and be
inconsistent with the level of intensity in the vicinity thereby changing the character of the
area and the present level of enjoyment by ratepayers and citizens in the vicinity;
• change the standard of amenity and alter what is presently available giving an unknown
style or gentrification to the locality resulting in potential conflicts.
Yours sincerely, Lionel Morrell
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Re: Submission to Launceston City Council, Public Meeting 7 June 2016
Proposed gift of land, formerly the Old Velodrome Track Site at Inveresk (Site 1), and formerly the Old Goods Rail Depot Willis Street (Site 2) Launceston.
I advise that I oppose the principle of LCC ratepayers gifting the above parcels of land to the University of Tasmania as they have requested for construction of university facilities because given the location of the parcels of land, a university development of the scale and intensity as described in publicity issued by the University of Tasmania and Launceston City Council, shall
• disadvantage the suburbs of Mowbray and Newnham because of their loss of activities and existing economic benefits;
• potentially allow for inappropriate developments to occur at the exiting Newnham campus as it will become necessary to put available users into that site in order to maintain and protect the area;
• waste valuable carbon storages present in the existing Newnham campus buildings as much of that building infrastructure will be potentially destroyed.
I advise that I oppose the principle of LCC ratepayers gifting the above parcels of land to the University of Tasmania as they have requested for construction of university facilities because given the location of the parcels of land, a university development of the scale and intensity as described in publicity issued by the University of Tasmania and Launceston City Council, shall:
• create an over-intensification of development of these two parcels of land and be inconsistent with the level of intensity in the vicinity thereby changing the character of the area and the present level of enjoyment by ratepayers and citizens in the vicinity;
• change the standard of amenity and alter what is presently available giving an unknown style or gentrification to the locality resulting in potential conflicts.
Yours sincerely, Lionel Morrell
SECTION 65 of Tasmania’s Local Government Act states:
“(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 the general manager certifies in writing that such advice was obtained and taken into account in providing general advice to the council or council committee.”
The Act seems to be quite silent in regard to the necessity for the independence of the advice offered to aldermen in respect to their decision making and the expertise they, as elected aldermen, bring to the process of decision making. Nonetheless in practice, a spectrum of advice will inevitably be brought to bear and likewise there will be subjective assessments made. However, the advice available, and the various assessments of it, inform Council decision making.
That said, the Act is invoked on every Council Agenda and thus the questions arising in regard to Council’s reportedly unanimous decision to gift valuable public land to UTas, are:
Yours sincerely, Ray Norman
I wish to contest the very notion that Launceston Council should be gifting millions of dollars of community assets to anyone without first testing the market and establishing its real value – fiscal, social, cultural.
That is, testing the assets’ value by going to an open public tender process and/or testing the concept with the community in ways that includes a wealthy and successful institution – here a university. Moreover, an institution that uses community services without the necessity of having to make a commensurate contribution in the way ratepayers are required to do.
As it stands Council's precipitate action of gifting valuable land to UTas creates at least two questions:
I make this submission on behalf of a group of petitioners who do not wish to use Council’s form and are most reluctant to identify themselves to Council on this issue. I’ve satisfied myself that they are all Launceston ratepayers and that they are entitled to make a submission. Thus I happily do so on their behalf at their request as the petitions’ authoriser.
The question that does not seem to have been put and it certainly has not been addressed in the press is to do with a Development Application (DA) for UTas’s proposed development. It seems somewhat extraordinary that Council is considering anything to do with UTas’s proposed development, and on this site, until or unless there is a firm/concrete proposition for Council to consider in the regular way. There would, at face value, be a number of impediments a development on this site would need to overcome not the least in terms of planning constraints, environmental issues and the need to deal with heritage concerns.
The nature and scope of UTas’s proposal is a matter exclusively for UTas to determine unless of course the City of Launceston is intending to be (or already is?!) a collaborating partner (shareholder?) in the ‘enterprise’.
If there were a DA before Council in the regular way there would be a level of openness and transparency that would allow ratepayers, residents, et al to represent their interests and concerns in the same way as they can in respect to any other development before Council. Why hasn’t this been considered?
Likewise, residents, ratepayers and developers would be able to more appropriately assess their options and opportunities going forward on that euphemistic “level playing field” that is often talked about.
The lack of a DA related to the UTas proposal raises all kinds of concerns relative to the university’s proposal and plans that by extension ring alarm bells for residents, ratepayers and developers in other areas – all of whom wish to be dealt with in an open and transparent way. Among the concerns germane to this proposal is Council’s actual commitment to accountability in accord with its own stated ‘organisational values’.
Moreover, the lack of a DA suggests that there may be may be something that is being hidden. If there is, what is it? If there is, why is it being hidden and from whom?
By side-stepping the DA processes Council has become vulnerable to unwelcomed speculation that permeates throughout the community and beyond it. The consequences of that impact in unhelpful ways upon anyone looking to entertain a ‘Launceston Development’. Already there is speculation, unwelcomed speculation, that investors have sold or are looking to sell Launceston properties in order invest elsewhere in the State/Australia.
Launceston’s population has essentially stagnated, and arguably is currently stagnant, and any prospect of ’substantial growth’ seems to be some way away. Indeed, the city seems to be facing the prospect of unsustainability in a changing economic environment. That might be turned around if government – State and Local – were to take its constituency into its confidence.
A first step towards this kind of equitability and accountability would be to have UTas submit a DA for its proposed development in an open and transparent way as might be expected of other developers and investors.
Yours sincerely
Ray Norman
For and on behalf of five petitioners
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proposed gift of land, formerly the Old Velodrome Track Site at Inveresk (Site 1), and formerly the Old Goods Rail Depot Willis Street (Site 2) Launceston.
I advise that I oppose the principle of LCC ratepayers gifting the above parcels of land to the University of Tasmania as they have requested for construction of university facilities because given the location of the parcels of land, a university development of the scale and intensity as described in publicity issued by the University of Tasmania and Launceston City Council, shall
• disadvantage the suburbs of Mowbray and Newnham because of their loss of activities and existing economic benefits;
• potentially allow for inappropriate developments to occur at the exiting Newnham campus as it will become necessary to put available users into that site in order to maintain and protect the area;
• waste valuable carbon storages present in the existing Newnham campus buildings as much of that building infrastructure will be potentially destroyed.
Yours sincerely, Lionel Morrell
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Re: Submission to Launceston City Council, Public Meeting 7 June 2016
Proposed gift of land, formerly the Old Velodrome Track Site at Inveresk (Site 1), and
formerly the Old Goods Rail Depot Willis Street (Site 2) Launceston.
I advise that I oppose the principle of LCC ratepayers gifting the above parcels of land to the University of Tasmania as they have requested for construction of university facilities because given the location of the parcels of land, a university development of the scale and intensity as described in publicity issued by the University of Tasmania and Launceston City Council, shall:
• create an over-intensification of development of these two parcels of land and be inconsistent with the level of intensity in the vicinity thereby changing the character of the area and the present level of enjoyment by ratepayers and citizens in the vicinity;
• change the standard of amenity and alter what is presently available giving an unknown style or gentrification to the locality resulting in potential conflicts.
Yours sincerely, Lionel Morrell
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Submission to Launceston City Council, Public Meeting 7 June 2016
The General Manager, Mr. Robert Dobrzynski, Launceston City
Council, P O Box 396,
LAUNCESTON, Tas. 7250
Subject: - Public Meeting -
Tuesday 7th June, 2016
In reference to the Public Meeting to be held on Tuesday 7th
June in respect to Council’s “in
principle” proposal to gift land to UTAS I believe that this has been ill
considered and submit the following in support of the petition:-
- When Council made this “in principle”
decision to gift land to UTAS, had Alderman sighted a copy of the “Deed of
Gift” for the transfer of the Inveresk site from the Federal to State
Government?
- Recognising the known limitations with any
development on Launceston’s flood plains, did Alderman request an
independent report of both the known political risks together with the
potential cost burden to ratepayers?
- From when this idea was sown, has the
General Manager and Finance Manager created an expenditure line in the
budget to identify costs, including employees time. If so what are the
hourly charge out rates, including that of the General Manager, also
advising total costs to date and budgeted costs for ongoing years.
- If you are unable to provide adequate
detail, why it is that Council have failed to commit to good governance
and accountability in the interest of ratepayers.
- Why would Council gift the old velodrome site
that is strategically important to users of York Park?
- In 1990 the community sowed the seeds for
the redevelopment of the Inveresk site for a cultural, recreational and
community which attracted some $18m of Federal Government funds together
with community contributions: will these be safe unlike Rotary
International’s 75th Anniversary Gift that was destroyed by
UTAS without any formal apology from the Launceston City Council.
In view of the above points, it is inconceivable as to why Council has
agreed “in principle” to gift land as in the petition, treat the ratepayers
with such disparagement and with the potential costs to taxpayers running into
hundreds of millions of dollars with no credible business plan presented by any
associated party.
Yours faithfully, Ian J N Routley
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Submission to Launceston City Council, Public Meeting 7 June 2016
General Manager,
SECTION 65 of Tasmania’s Local Government Act states:
“(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 the general manager certifies in writing that such advice was obtained and taken into account in providing general advice to the council or council committee.”
The Act seems to be quite silent in regard to the necessity for the independence of the advice offered to aldermen in respect to their decision making and the expertise they, as elected aldermen, bring to the process of decision making. Nonetheless in practice, a spectrum of advice will inevitably be brought to bear and likewise there will be subjective assessments made. However, the advice available, and the various assessments of it, inform Council decision making.
That said, the Act is invoked on every Council Agenda and thus the questions arising in regard to Council’s reportedly unanimous decision to gift valuable public land to UTas, are:
- What expert advice was sought by, and/or offered by, the General Manger in regard to the decision making?
- What was the source/s of any advice offered to aldermen?
- Is the advice documented or recorded anywhere if it was formally/informally offered to the aldermen?
- By extension, what expertise, experience, evidence and/or modeling backed up any such advice offered?
- Did any aldermen seek and/or gain independent advice and if so, from what source/s?
- By extension, was that advice formally acknowledged and/or documented anywhere and available as a public reference.
Yours sincerely, Ray Norman
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Submission to Launceston City Council, Public Meeting 7 June 2016
General Manager,
I wish to contest the very notion that Launceston Council should be gifting millions of dollars of community assets to anyone without first testing the market and establishing its real value – fiscal, social, cultural.
That is, testing the assets’ value by going to an open public tender process and/or testing the concept with the community in ways that includes a wealthy and successful institution – here a university. Moreover, an institution that uses community services without the necessity of having to make a commensurate contribution in the way ratepayers are required to do.
As it stands Council's precipitate action of gifting valuable land to UTas creates at least two questions:
- Firstly, what consideration was obtained by the Council in exchange for the gifted land given that, culturally, gift-giving is used to build and maintain relationships, to show respect and express appreciation, or to enhance the image or reputation of the giver?
- Secondly, what protections have been provided to ratepayers that some consideration in terms of favours was not obtained by individuals within Council – for example protection against corrupt practices?
- Can ratepayers can actually afford such gifts? and
- Have open and transparent practices been used to assure ratepayers that corrupt practices are not in play?
Yours sincerely, Ray Norman
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Submission to Launceston City Council, Public Meeting 7 June 2016
General Manager,
As a consequence of Council gifting the land to UTas as it proposes to do, it appears that a range of implications will impact upon the city’s ratepayers and residents for decades to come – and potentially decade upon decade under the current Local Governance model.
The background against which this submission is framed is as follows:
If Council’s proposal to gift valuable land to UTas is realised it will equate to a gift to the university in the order of $150 per rateable property in the municipality.
Moreover, if UTas’s plans to shift it campus from Newnham to Inveresk it can be expected that there will be enormous infrastructure implications – road provision and maintenance, sewerage and stormwater, parking, recreational facilities, etc. – that will be ongoing – and potentially increasing over time.
Likewise, this will impact upon, and heavily upon, ratepayers without a contribution from the university or any other reliable source. Where is the equity in Council’s ‘gift decision’? What is Council planning to mitigate against adverse outcomes for ratepayers?
Council over time has depended upon ‘fly-in’ development money, not the least because Launceston is located in the Bass Electorate and it being a marginal seat. This has left ratepayers to provide for ongoing maintenance of the infrastructure and regional facilities well into the future.
This scenario is ever likely to repeat itself in regard to the consequences of Council’s UTas land gift and the government grant monies it aims to attract. Council has not addressed this community concern in any substantial way thus far except to consign its response to sometime into the future.
Where is the independent and relevant economic modeling related to this land gift decisions and its planned flow-on consequent developments?
Despite the lessons of history Council demonstrates that it is on track to repeat history, a history that has delivered a disproportionately high level of rates for the city that make it a less and less attractive place to live in and invest in.
Yours sincerely, Ray Norman
The background against which this submission is framed is as follows:
- Launcestonians pay the highest rates in Tasmania and in doing so they bear the cost of non-core regional cost centres;
- The city’s economic base is shifting from that of it being a centre for regional industrial enterprises, export oriented agricultural production and localised manufacturing to a more services focused city;
- A city with access to a shrinking resource base to fuel growth of the kind it has planned for in the past;
- The city’s population demographic being increasingly one where the population us disproportionally aging compared to recent decades;
- A city/municipality with approximately 50% of it population being reliant upon social security payments;
- A city/municipality with very high levels of unemployment and under employment and especial so in regard to young people;
- A city/municipality where globalising markets and marketing are impacting heavily, often negatively, upon local businesses.
If Council’s proposal to gift valuable land to UTas is realised it will equate to a gift to the university in the order of $150 per rateable property in the municipality.
Moreover, if UTas’s plans to shift it campus from Newnham to Inveresk it can be expected that there will be enormous infrastructure implications – road provision and maintenance, sewerage and stormwater, parking, recreational facilities, etc. – that will be ongoing – and potentially increasing over time.
Likewise, this will impact upon, and heavily upon, ratepayers without a contribution from the university or any other reliable source. Where is the equity in Council’s ‘gift decision’? What is Council planning to mitigate against adverse outcomes for ratepayers?
Council over time has depended upon ‘fly-in’ development money, not the least because Launceston is located in the Bass Electorate and it being a marginal seat. This has left ratepayers to provide for ongoing maintenance of the infrastructure and regional facilities well into the future.
This scenario is ever likely to repeat itself in regard to the consequences of Council’s UTas land gift and the government grant monies it aims to attract. Council has not addressed this community concern in any substantial way thus far except to consign its response to sometime into the future.
Where is the independent and relevant economic modeling related to this land gift decisions and its planned flow-on consequent developments?
Despite the lessons of history Council demonstrates that it is on track to repeat history, a history that has delivered a disproportionately high level of rates for the city that make it a less and less attractive place to live in and invest in.
Yours sincerely, Ray Norman
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Submission to Launceston City Council, Public Meeting 7 June 2016
General Manager,
I make this submission on behalf of a group of petitioners who do not wish to use Council’s form and are most reluctant to identify themselves to Council on this issue. I’ve satisfied myself that they are all Launceston ratepayers and that they are entitled to make a submission. Thus I happily do so on their behalf at their request as the petitions’ authoriser.
The question that does not seem to have been put and it certainly has not been addressed in the press is to do with a Development Application (DA) for UTas’s proposed development. It seems somewhat extraordinary that Council is considering anything to do with UTas’s proposed development, and on this site, until or unless there is a firm/concrete proposition for Council to consider in the regular way. There would, at face value, be a number of impediments a development on this site would need to overcome not the least in terms of planning constraints, environmental issues and the need to deal with heritage concerns.
The nature and scope of UTas’s proposal is a matter exclusively for UTas to determine unless of course the City of Launceston is intending to be (or already is?!) a collaborating partner (shareholder?) in the ‘enterprise’.
If there were a DA before Council in the regular way there would be a level of openness and transparency that would allow ratepayers, residents, et al to represent their interests and concerns in the same way as they can in respect to any other development before Council. Why hasn’t this been considered?
Likewise, residents, ratepayers and developers would be able to more appropriately assess their options and opportunities going forward on that euphemistic “level playing field” that is often talked about.
The lack of a DA related to the UTas proposal raises all kinds of concerns relative to the university’s proposal and plans that by extension ring alarm bells for residents, ratepayers and developers in other areas – all of whom wish to be dealt with in an open and transparent way. Among the concerns germane to this proposal is Council’s actual commitment to accountability in accord with its own stated ‘organisational values’.
Moreover, the lack of a DA suggests that there may be may be something that is being hidden. If there is, what is it? If there is, why is it being hidden and from whom?
By side-stepping the DA processes Council has become vulnerable to unwelcomed speculation that permeates throughout the community and beyond it. The consequences of that impact in unhelpful ways upon anyone looking to entertain a ‘Launceston Development’. Already there is speculation, unwelcomed speculation, that investors have sold or are looking to sell Launceston properties in order invest elsewhere in the State/Australia.
Launceston’s population has essentially stagnated, and arguably is currently stagnant, and any prospect of ’substantial growth’ seems to be some way away. Indeed, the city seems to be facing the prospect of unsustainability in a changing economic environment. That might be turned around if government – State and Local – were to take its constituency into its confidence.
A first step towards this kind of equitability and accountability would be to have UTas submit a DA for its proposed development in an open and transparent way as might be expected of other developers and investors.
Yours sincerely
Ray Norman
For and on behalf of five petitioners
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Dobrzynski,
General Manager, City of Launceston.
Dear Robert,
As
you no doubt remember, at the meeting of YPIPA, November 2011, members were
strongly, vocally and unanimously opposed to your plan to give Inveresk
Precinct land to the university for student accommodation under federal
Affordable Housing funding.
.
You gave two rather puny reasons for your plan at the time.
These were that, firstly, under the Affordable Housing funding the university
was not permitted to buy other land and so it had to be given the land,
despite it already having land intended for their student accommodation at
Newnham. Secondly, you made a general blanket claim that it was ‘good town
planning’, a claim that you could not back up.
You might also remember, dear Robert, that the majority of
the Authority was concerned that the Precinct remained a public facility and
did not become a university campus.
As I have always considered each Inveresk proposal on its
merits, I have not seen any sound reasons or solid information to support the
current intention of gifting of the land to the university or to support any
move from the current campus. Before any support for a university move
from the Mowbray-Newnham campus to anywhere else in Launceston, a minimum
requirement by all levels of government should be an independent study and
complete analysis of the position of the existing campus, including the future
promotion of, and possibilities for that campus.
As a ratepayer, a resident of Invermay, a rental property
owner, and an alumna of the university, I am submitting the above as part of
the discussion on ‘the Council’s decision to transfer (free gift) land’. I
further submit as part of the discussion, that Council (and, by association,
the State and Federal Governments) request a full independent analysis on the
merits and promotion of the Mowbray-Newnham campus, effects on Mowbray village
and shopping centre and northern suburbs, and that similar promotional material
on the existing campus (complete with glossy publications) be produced as part
of the discussion on the Council’s transference of land gratis to the
university.
Yours faithfully, Jillian
Koshin.
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Objection to UTAS Northern Expansion
31st May
2016
I, Jennifer Sabatino wish to submit an objection to the plans to
build a UTAS Campus at Inveresk & Willis Street, Launceston.
I live in Melbourne but own a
half share in a house in Invermay and stay there on a regular basis. I was born in Launceston and went to Invermay
Primary School and Brooks High School when it was at the Newnham site. I intend to return to live in Invermay
permanently within the next ten years, so the developments in Inveresk are of
concern to me.
I have read the arguments for and
against the project and also used my own knowledge of the area to form my
opinions which are as follows:
1.
I strongly disagree that the Launceston City
Council should give the land at Inveresk and Willis Street to UTAS for
free. There is no guarantee that student
numbers can be increased to the extent that students will contribute significantly
to Launceston’s economy and eventually outweigh the value of the land. Students are usually notoriously poor, so
there is a limit to the amount they can contribute to the economy, especially
if student numbers remain low. Launceston ratepayers should not have to bear
the cost.
2.
UTAS claim that they are a business and must
operate as one. As a business they
should buy the land and not expect handouts.
They can’t have it both ways. If,
as they claim, the Newnham Campus is not viable, this suggests that the
business is not being run properly or efficiently and I wonder if the situation
would change if relocated to Inveresk.
If nothing changes and business practices aren’t improved, Launceston
would be left with another unviable campus.
3.
The Newnham site is situated only 5kms from the
city centre. By Melbourne standards,
this is considered practically on the doorstep of the CBD. Some of Melbourne’s Universities are 10-30kms
from the CBD and students are not necessarily offered a place at the closest
university. Many students have to travel
right across the city, e.g. Dandenong to La Trobe University in Bundoora which would
be approximately 44kms depending on the heavily congested routes taken by car,
or a combination of buses, trams and trains.
Students spend hours on public transport and, more often than not, can’t
afford to leave home and find accommodation closer to the university. The big difference between Melbourne and
Launceston is that getting to and from the Newnham Campus and Launceston’s city
centre is considerably easier, quicker and more straight forward than it is in
Melbourne, even if one lives on the outskirts of Launceston’s southern suburbs
or on the other side of the Tamar River.
This is one of the great advantages and attractions of living in
Launceston.
4.
The Newnham Campus is set in wonderful grounds
and is, I would think, conducive to a healthy mind and body which is essential
for students, especially for homesick overseas students and others living away
from home. The Inveresk site, while
close to the city centre, is nowhere near as attractive and peaceful. The cost
of building a new campus at Inveresk could be put into updating and creating
more modern buildings and spaces at Newnham.
Surely new buildings at Inveresk aren’t any different to new or updated
buildings at Newnham. Someone with
vision and forethought should be able to come up with an exciting new plan and
strategy for Newnham. Has anyone tried
to? I am positive that if the same
effort was put into Newnham as it was into Inveresk & Willis Street, that
it would be just as viable, if not more so, than Inveresk.
5.
Traffic. Anecdotal
evidence claims that traffic, not just at the Lindsay/Goderich Streets intersection,
but also at the Lindsay Street/Invermay Road intersection, has increased since
Bunnings, Office Works, JB Hi Fi, etc. opened at Ogilivie Park. Has there been a traffic feasibility study
done in that area to see if it can cope with extra traffic generated by a UTAS
Campus at Inveresk? If the optimistic
vision that eventually there will be 10,000 students at Inveresk is realised,
there is going to be a massive traffic problem.
Even with the current number of students, there will be traffic
problems. How will the Launceston City
Council address this? Build another
bridge? Build an overpass? Knock down shops, businesses and homes to
build a wider road? Turn Launceston into
another Melbourne or Sydney and spoil its character and charm which is the very
thing that brings visitors to Tasmania?
6.
The Inveresk Campus will be on a flood
plain. I am still wondering what the
museum is doing on a flood plain. I know
the flood levies have worked since they were erected, but as time goes on,
degraded levies or a major flood could change that. Is there anyone on Council or at UTAS who has
lived through, or even knows about the 1929 flood and other floods before and since
then? (Surprisingly, there are people in Tasmania who don’t know, or know very
little.) Do they know about the
reclaimed land around the Seaport area which has altered the flow of the North
Esk River into and out of the Tamar River? Were they ever one of those
unfortunate (or perhaps fortunate) patrons stranded at the bar of the Riverview
Hotel in Charles Street by high tides before the levies were built? I am sure that flood prevention will always
be an issue in Launceston and money will be needed to keep the levies in good
condition or replaced. If the land at
Inveresk and Willis Street is given away free to UTAS, there will be less money
available to ensure that Inveresk is kept safe from floods.
7.
If student numbers are to be increased, a lot
more needs to be done than change the location of the campus. I don’t know about Tasmania, but in Melbourne
for instance, there is a strong culture in Primary and Secondary Schools which
encourages students to work towards University.
I don’t necessarily agree with this because, as a consequence, a large
number of students apply to universities out of pressure to conform and they
enrol in courses to which they aren’t suited and are more likely to fail, find
themselves unemployed or in employment totally unrelated to their studies.
However, it does show that there is more to student numbers than location and
needs to be looked at further.
Finally, if I was a university student, I would
prefer to study at the Newnham Campus. The
city centre is still very close if I want to shop, visit restaurants or cafes
and socialise (if I could afford it) and there are also shops at Mowbray which
need support as much as Inveresk and city shops do. I wouldn’t want to be confined to one area,
namely the Inveresk/City area. I would
want variety and change in my daily routine.
If I was an overseas student I would appreciate studying in the lovely
surroundings at Newnham rather than in an older, tired, built up area with
traffic. My experience with overseas students in Melbourne, including those who
eventually became work colleagues, is that although they love the diversity of
Australia, they especially love the outdoors and they take every opportunity
they can to escape study and work to experience it, whether it be city parks
& gardens, beaches, mountains or National Parks. As a high school student I was fortunate
enough to go to Brooks High School on that same site for four years and
considered myself very lucky compared to students at other schools around
Launceston. It wasn’t difficult to get
to. I even walked from Invermay if I
wanted to save my bus fare allowance for something else. If I wasn’t in the mood for school, the
surroundings more often than not lifted my spirits and I’m sure that would
apply to today’s university students and staff.
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
These and similar comments represent an illegitimate departure from the rule that the citizens are led by the Council, which is controlled by the General Manager. Therefore it is up to citizens of Launceston to support the General Manager and comply with his/her directives with alacrity.
ReplyDelete