Uproar over old TasTAFE Wellington Street hotel development approval

I will keep a note of those three names to particularly vote for in future (hopefully many others will do the same). I'm surprised not to see at least two other councillors (who usually vote for more sensible development but are not mentioned specifically in the article) not on that same list. I'm not sure what the background was, though, on that front. Also, I totally agree it's a bad precedent - the only hope would be that this is such an unusual site that it shouldn't be viewed as setting 'neighbourhood character' although that concept apparently seems to be ignored in Launceston planning decisions for some reason-a really bad result for all of us Launceston ratepayers who love our city. There can still be hotels and development without overdevelopment and greed happening, which will ultimately ruin what tourists and residents find amazing and unique about Launceston.

I'd have to ask why the Council is bothering to engage planning professionals on their payroll (which we ratepayers pay for) if they are just going to ignore them??!! It might be that average members of the community didn't realise they needed to engage because this particular site wasn't as close to people's residences and businesses as the other examples raised to justify the decision (so the issue probably wasn't as well publicised for this reason). That doesn't mean no-one cared about the impacts on important PUBLIC landmarks like the cenotaph, QV etc. and it was the Councillors' jobs to represent their community to protect these - once it's approved and built it's a very permanent change to all of these important landmarks. I totally agree with Cr Gibson's comments on this one. Is there some training course the rest of the councillors can go to so that the process actually works as it should? Planning professionals are actually listened to, you know, allow actual good quality planning to occur?

EM, Launceston

In response to Joe Colbrook's article, Launceston is 'open for business' after the Wellington St hotel gets over the line.

If approval of this sort of trash 'development' means being 'open for business' then Launceston is not much better than a brothel.

Mike Seward, Launceston

In response to Joe Colbrook's article, Launceston is 'open for business' after the Wellington St hotel gets over the line.

This tells you a lot about the Council makeup and the absolute shambles it currently is (Launceston 'open for business' after Wellington St hotel gets over the line). Andrea Dawkins acting with sour grapes. Many many thanks Danny Gibson, Andrew Palmer and Alex Britton. Three names I will remember moving forward and will support well into the future.

PM, Launceston

In response to Joe Colbrook's article, Launceston is 'open for business' after the Wellington St hotel gets over the line.

The article says that it was Councillors Gibson, Britton & Razay who voted against Cr Dawkins proposal! Good on those three for standing up for our beautiful human scale historic city! I haven't followed this issue but I'm dismayed that an 11-storey hotel development on that site will set a high-rise precedent for Launceston.

Kerin Booth, Launceston

In response to Joe Colbrook's article, Launceston is 'open for business' after the Wellington St hotel gets over the line.

This is good news and good for forward movement and Launceston's brand.

Bill Pezzimenti, Launceston

CONSIDERING recent events, I believe the Death Penalty should definitely be re-introduced. We see and read nearly daily of someone losing their life and the perpetrator receiving a paltry sentence, then paroled early for whatever reason. Oh, they had a drug problem, a poor upbringing, were abused at school and on and on it goes. I couldn't care less what their life was like, if you deliberately take another person's life, then you should have yours taken from you. I, and I am sure many others, had hard upbringings, however we don't go out and kill someone because of that, these stupid ridiculous sentences are not working, if you kill, you should be killed.

Richard F Cooke, Invermay