YORK PARK ELM

 

An 80-year-old Dutch elm tree is now officially blocking the $130 million York Park redevelopment.

City of Launceston councillors failed to agree on the tree's fate after the Department of State Growth sought its removal to facilitate the redevelopment of the facility, also known as UTAS Stadium.

Councillors were first presented with a motion to grant planning permission to remove the tree - something that was required as the York Park area has heritage protections.

The tree itself does not have such protections.

Council tied up over performance criteria
Councillor Alan Harris spoke for the original motion at the September 5 meeting, and said although it relied on performance criteria it would result in a better outcome for the city.

He said a vote to approve the planning application did not mean the tree would be lopped overnight, but it would give the proponents that option if they could not adjust their designs to retain it.

"If we are to have $130 million spent on York Park to improve and upgrade it to a level two AFL and Cricket Australia listed stadium, we must support today the request to remove the elm tree," he said.

The proponents said they were investigating planting mature trees in place of the Dutch elm, and reusing the tree's wood at the site.

Councillor Andrea Dawkins said she was "erring on the side of the tree", and it was possible for the redevelopment to go ahead with the tree in place.

Councillors Lindi McMahon and Andrew Palmer each advised their colleagues to set aside emotions before making their decisions.

This vote came down to a tie, which under council rules is a loss.

Remaining at loggerheads
A motion to reject the planning application was put forward by councillor Tim Walker, who acknowledged it was most likely doomed to fail from the outset.

Councillor Joe Pentridge, one of the original dissenting voters, said he was set in his ways but appealed to his colleagues on the other side of the debate.

"I'd love to be the one that had the ability to change, but I'm too old so I'm sorry for that," he said.

"Maybe my colleagues can change."

Councillor Alex Britton said he would not be the one to change.

Cr Britton said the debate was "getting to the point of wasting time" as the redevelopment was bound to proceed regardless.

"To talk perfectly honestly [this is] a $130 million development for this city and we are all sitting around here talking about one tree. I can understand the importance of a tree but not this tree in this context," he said.

With councillors still at loggerheads, the second motion failed.

The matter will now be referred to the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

A Department of State Growth spokesperson said the department was "considering its planning options" after the failed motions.

They said the transfer of the stadium to Stadiums Tasmania would continue, and the council had to act on planning matters impartially without considering who owned the facility - an issue raised by Cr Walker.

"State Growth is considering its planning options after the council failed to make a determination on the development application. The construction program is being reviewed in light of this," the spokesperson said.