From: Ray Norman <raynorman7250@gmail.com>
Date: Monday, 30 March 2026 at 1:01 pm
To: Mayor Matthew Garwood <matthew.garwood@launceston.tas.gov.au>, Cr. Hugh McKenzie <Hugh.Mckenzie@launceston.tas.gov.au>, Cr. Joe Pentridge <joe.pentridge@launceston.tas.gov.au>, Cr. Andrew Palmer <andrew.palmer@launceston.tas.gov.au>, Cr. Lindi McMahon <lindi.mcmahon@launceston.tas.gov.au>, Councillor Alan Harris <alan.harris@launceston.tas.gov.au>, Cr. Tim Walker <tim.walker@launceston.tas.gov.au>, Cr. Susie Cai <susie.cai@launceston.tas.gov.au>, Cr. Alex Britton <alex.britton@launceston.tas.gov.au>, Cr. Danny Gibson <danny.gibson@launceston.tas.gov.au>, Cr Krista Preece <krista.preece@launceston.tas.gov.au>, Cr Ross Marsden <ross.marsden@launceston.tas.gov.au>, Sam Johnson <Sam.Johnson@launceston.tas.gov.au>, Local Government Division <localgovernment@dpac.tas.gov.au>, The Premier <premier@dpac.tas.gov.au>, Minister Vincent <kerry.vincent@parliament.tas.gov.au>, Hon Madeleine Ogilvie <madeleine.ogilvie@parliament.tas.gov.au>, Minister Pearce <gavin.pearce@parliament.tas.gov.au>, Minister Ellis <felix.ellis@dpac.tas.gov.au>
Cc: Anita Dow <anita.dow@parliament.tas.gov.au>, Josh Willie <josh.willie@parliament.tas.gov.au>, GEORGE TOWN COUNCIL : <info@georgetown.tas.gov.au>, MEANDER VALLEY COUNCIL <mail@mvc.tas.gov.au>, WEST TAMAR COUNCIL MAYOR <cholmdahl.wtc@bigpond.com>, NORTHERN MIDLANDS COUNCIL <council@nmc.tas.gov.au>, CITY OF HOBART COUNCIL <coh@hobartcity.com.au>, NORTHERN TASMANIAN DEVELPMENT CORPORATION <admin@ntdc.org.au>, Rosemary Armitage <rosemary.armitage@parliament.tas.gov.au>, L’ton Chamber of Commerce <info@lcc.asn.au>, Greg Parkinson <tas0946@bigpond.com>, Jess Teesdale <jess.teesdale@taslabor.org.au>, I43-1 <institute43-1@bigpond.com>
Subject: Trevallyn House SUBMISSSION
ATTENTION:
Foreword:
This submission is made in the context of there being a further submission accompanied by an Expression of Interest anticipated and that being for an alternative/s to removing the building from its current location. A prompt response to this submission would be appreciated in order that any unforeseen matters can be, or that need to be, addressed in the further submission can be if they are drawn to our attention now. Thank you!
.
PROGRESS = forward movement towards a destination.
STRATEGICALLY TOWARDS WHAT DESTINATION?
WITH = accompanied by
PRUDENCE = the quality of cautiousness.
STRATEGICALLY IN A HOUSING CRISIS HOW PROGRESSIVE
OR CAUTIOUS IS IT DEMOLISH A DWELLING & POSSIBLY
CONSIGN THEV INVESTEDV RESOURCES TO LANDFIL?
THE TREVALLYNhouse
FEASIBLY, the resources invested in this building could be reconfigured to provide MICROaccommodation for 9 or 10 people. In a housing crisis it is social delinquency and fiscal folly NOT to interrogate the options and opportunities to deliver an outcome that fits the circumstance and pays attention to the housing crisis, and the need for housing that is clear and present.
Moreover,IF ONcycled and resources from elsewhere were to be added then feasibly every last kilo of the resource in this structure could be strategically and economically ONcycled to possibly create a demonstration of a MACRO-CUM-MICRO community of autonomous ‘dwellings’ albeit as a consequence of decades of Council failing to maintain a community asset.
Council's management has a record of working on the premise that ‘ratepayers are not investors and do not need to make a profit’. That’s the premise that reportedly underpinned the Birchalls Building. While there is a modicum of truth in the ‘assertion’, ratepayers pay rates in order to receive SOCIALdividends and here with this ‘dwelling’
However, IF the BUREAUCRATIC door is slammed shut, and tightly, then the STATUSquo will prevail as might the dystopia it harbours. Nonetheless, the door might not be shut and IF so, either an Expression of Interest or submissions from interested parties might yet rest this house from what bears all the hallmarks of a bureaucracy’s dysfunctionalism – and arguably a dereliction of duty as well.
Questions arise regarding the veracity of the assertions made in the report to Councillors. 'In business and academe’ such assertions are characterised as ‘truth by assertion’ and once tested they typically fall over. At the most basic level IF Council lacks the business acumen to deliver a ‘dividend’ (final or social)this ‘home’ would feasibly fetch something in the order of $600K. That being so the fiscal dividends should NOT absorb into general revenue and the funds raised might well be put to work elsewhere – ideally relieving housing stress in the jurisdiction.
On the face of it this determination by Council poses serious questions for ratepayers and especially so given what appears to be forfeited for the seeming lack of strategic thinking that appears to leave ratepayers and HOMEseekers in less than a favourable position at a time such the present. Arguably, a significant factor in all this is Councils ongoing reluctance to employ an architect that would enable Council to work collaboratively and cooperatively in its placemaking towards better outcomes.
In addition, the figures estimated for the cost of renovation and demolition needs to be interrogated as people in
'THE INDUSTRY' are saying that they are unrealistic and Council's record in such matters leaves to be desired. Also, there is a
Community of Ownership & Interest (COI) that has apparently not been engaged with or taken into account in a transparent way. Within this community asset’s COI there are people eminently qualified to make meaningful and constructive contributions regarding this community asset’s (
dwelling, etc.)status –
given its values fiscal, social and cultural.
This structure is NOT RUBBISH albeit that the decision making might well be considered in that light!
BACKGROUNDING
THE TREVALLYNhouse
A HOUSE OWNED BY THE COMMUNITY AND MANAGED
BY THE CITY OF LAUNCESTON COUNCIL
With the proposed demolition of this dwelling what:
- Social dividends or deficits does the decision deliver?
- Under SECTION 65 what 'professional advice' was on offer and supplied by whom and in what context?
- Purposeful strategic imperatives are in play relative to 'resource recovery" appropriate land use and cultural landscaping?
- Consideration has been given to 'the place's' Community of Ownership and Interest's values, obligations & rights in a 21st C context?
https://www.realestate.com.au/property/my-property/details/15173236
The proposed demolition of this property is arguably an
outrageous and ill-informed proposition and especially
so given the cultural, social, and fiscal outcomes it
is ever likely to deliver
LINKS
WATCH THIS SPACE
Moriyama house is located in Ohta-ku, a residential area in the center of Tokyo dotted with single-family houses and midsize apartment blocks, placed orderly on a traditional urban pattern that preserves a typically Japanese atmosphere. Drawing inspiration from the extremely fragmented fabric of the capital – a reflection of its fast-paced growth –, the house reinvents the traditional concept of the Japanese dwelling by distributing, on a 290 square meter plot, a group of independent volumes that include the dwelling of the owner and, temporarily, five rental apartments.
Yours sincerely,
Ray Norman Polemicist, Cultural Producer, Cultural Geographer, Researcher
The lifestyle design enterprise and research network PH: 0488 011 376 eMAIL: raynorman7250@gmail.com Delamere Cres 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 Consultant
https://raynorman7250.blogspot.com/p/zingconsult.html https://notrubbish.blogspot.com/ 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
|
|
