Councillors go against planners, reject West Launceston planning application

The proposal to build a second two storey house, containing two bedrooms and a double car garage at 18 Wyett Street, West Launceston was the topic of a marathon debate - lasting two hours - on April 18.

A total of 53 neighbours objected to the plans on a range of issues, including the fact it would not fit within the acceptable building limits, heritage code issues and traffic along an access road and nearby streets.

Planning officers said the proposal was compliant with the planning scheme in most cases, and satisfied performance criteria on all the others.

This included the fact about one-fifth of the proposed house, which is set to be built on a sloping block, would fall outside the allowable building limits.

Elizabeth Maclaine-Cross, who owned a neighbouring property on Hill Street and her husband Eamonn Tiernan were part of a group of 10 residents who attended the council meeting to further air their grievances.

Ms Maclaine-Cross said planning officers had erred in their recommendation to approve the dwelling, as it would negatively impact neighbours' amenity, relied too heavily on performance criteria and errors in the plans before the council.

These had been rectified by the time the plans were put before councillors, and the development application had to be advertised twice as a result.

"The council planner recommends granting a permit," Ms Maclaine-Cross said.

"His recommendation is undermined by the number of omissions, assumptions and errors in his report, and the statements of subjective opinion rather than objective analysis."

Mr Tiernan cited traffic concerns, namely the existing access road was too narrow for two-way traffic, and the surrounding streets were not up to the task of taking the extra traffic.

A motion to approve the development as it stood failed, and councillors drafted an alternate motion to refuse the planning application.

This took some discussion about wording, and the final motion for refusal cited the steepness of the driveway between the new house and the access road and the building envelope issue.

Councillor Tim Walker said the decision to refuse the development application "sent a message" to the developers.

"I can understand a lot of this could be mitigated, and I can understand a planning officer's consternation that this may not be defensible," Cr Walker said.

"It is the strong opinion of this table, as is evidenced, that this is the case.

"This does send a message from this council, from these elected members, that if there is any way in which this particular development can be amended, altered, improved in terms of its outcomes then that should be pursued."

Councillor Danny Gibson disagreed with that notion, and said councillors needed to remember which "hat" they were wearing at any one time.

"I didn't vote against it to send a message. I voted against it and put in some work to prepare a motion for refusal that was on planning grounds," he said.

"For me I understand clearly, and I think most councillors understand clearly.

"We have two roles, we have two hats. We're a member of a planning authority, we then stop that role, then we're a member of the council. They're very different."