Take the recent decision by the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal which, on Thursday, knocked back a significant proposal in the Josef Chromy Group's ambitious Gorge Hotel.

The tribunal has, in effect, upheld a height and noise complaint submitted by a small but vocal group of appellants, lead by one business owner.

While making its decision, the tribunal said the development did not meet the planning scheme's height guidelines and noted the impact of noise from a top-floor restaurant proposed for the hotel.

The decision is a disappointing one, not only for the proponents of the Gorge Hotel, developer Joseph Chromy but for the wider tourism community in Launceston.

The city's shortage of accommodation of all shapes and sizes has been well-documented, but the Gorge Hotel would have provided a new iconic building for tourists and locals to enjoy.

While it is a large building and, if it had been approved, would have been one of the largest in Launceston, but it is reminiscent of the large demand for accommodation in the city. Increasing capacity for tourists while also providing a place for locals to gather or dine would add further depth to our cultural scene.

The decision by the tribunal is an example of the tricky web of planning schemes and how the visual impact or economic benefit of development can not be taken into account when discussing and making a decision about an appeal.

The members of the tribunal, as well as the City of Launceston councillors (who approved the proposal), are somewhat hamstrung by the details presented to them in the proposal, which often provides a data-heavy snapshot.

Cultural, social or economic benefits, or otherwise, are not measured in planning decisions. Planning schemes and appeals have a role to play in the development application process but where do we draw the line on what constitutes planning and what constitutes progress for our city?