Like it or lump it: 2025 development decisions that went against public opinion

Updated 6 hours ago by Joe Colbrook

Most development applications dealt with in Launceston barely register on people's radars, but every so often one comes along which sits poorly with the community at large.

For councillors, deciding on these is often a case of being damned if you do, damned if you don't.

While they sit as a planning authority, tasked with considering matters dispassionately and solely in relation to planning laws, councillors are also generally accountable to the community as elected representatives.

2025 IN REVIEW: Our most inspiring young people in 2025

Throw in the fact that in some cases the test is for a "reasonable" outcome - which is inherently subjective - and a tribunal appeal will often follow a rejection development decisions are a fraught process.

Here are some of the more contentious developments decided on by the City of Launceston council throughout 2025.

32-38 Waverley Road, Waverley

With 194 representations lodged against it, councillors made a very unpopular decision when they voted to approve a 20-lot subdivision at 32-38 Waverley Road.

Many of the objections relating to traffic management - or a lack thereof - along the Tasman Highway, which the development relied upon alongside concerns about fire management and landslides.

There were also some concerns about the new subdivision reducing nearby home values, however this was deemed an issue outside the scope of planning laws.

Although the development was unpopular with the community, councillors had little difficulty in approving a permit and voted 8-1 in favour of the proposal.

Mowbray McDonald's (298-308 Invermay Road)

The future Mowbray McDonald's did not garner the same level of opposition as the last development application relating to 298-308 Invermay Road, but it still attracted some community angst.

A key issue raised 17 representations filed against the development application was traffic, and in particular the risk to pedestrians and other vulnerable road users.

The commercial property abuts the Mowbray Heights Primary School, with concerns young students might be at increased risk due to higher traffic volumes.

In an attempt to mitigate these concerns an amendment was tabled, including a condition that the developers install safety signs at the entrance, and the approval was granted after a 9-3 vote.

76 Cimitiere Street, Launceston

Unlike other decisions on this list, councillors did not actually get the final say over a proposal to build a medium-rise hotel at 76 Cimitiere Street.

The 61-bedroom Quest-branded accommodation, on a street corner overlooking City Park, exceeded the default 10-metre building height limit.

This, along with concerns it would overshadow or otherwise detract from the heritage-listed park, spurred 11 residents into raising their concerns with the council.

The development application was never debated in open council, as resignations and a conflict of interest mean there were not enough councillors present to make a decision.

Chief executive Sam Johnson approved the hotel, in line with officers' recommendations, under delegated authority.

74 Talbot Road, South Launceston

The council's call on a proposal for a second dwelling at 74 Talbot Road, South Launceston stands out from the others on this list, as it was a rare occasion where they acted contrary to officers' advice.

Plans to build a three-storey, four-bedroom house at the back of the property fell somewhat flat with the community - 10 residents objected based on the building's bulk, and concerns about the chosen access way on Sandhill Lane, a private road.

Councillor Alan Harris proposed rejecting the development based on these concerns, as they were matters for discretionary approval, and his colleagues around the table agreed.

Based on closed council agendas, this decision is the subject of a potential appeal to the state's tribunal.

6 Richards Avenue, Newstead

One of the last planning decisions made by councillors in 2025 came after a major bungle.

Eight representations were submitted against a knock-down-rebuild development application at 6 Richards Avenue, Newstead over concerns the development would overshadow their homes, leading to a loss of privacy and amenity.

However, those that filed the representations were sent a form letter advising them to attend the council meeting at the wrong time - prompting a last-minute ring around by council staff to correct their error.

Some residents were able to make the meeting, although their pleas to the council did not have much pull as the application was approved.