Planners opposed to Lenna expansion bid

REVAMPED plans for a $60 million expansion of the heritage-listed Lenna of Hobart hotel in Battery Point set to go before a Hobart City Council Planning Committee tonight should be refused, planning officers say.

The original designs released in September last year received 90 objections and sent the owners and developers back to the drawing board.

The new building would be lower at 24m high and 3.5m lower than the penthouse floor of the Lenna building next door. But in the council agenda, planning officers say the revised plans still failed to respect the cultural heritage and character of the area.

The new design is smaller than the initial proposal and has 78 rooms and two penthouses — the four retail spaces on Salamanca Place have been retained as part of the revised plans. The recommendation to refuse says the project fails to complement and contribute to the cultural significance, character and appearance of Runnymede St.

“The location, bulk and appearance of the proposal adversely affects the heritage values of places of cultural significance (including the Salamanca Place warehouses and Princes Park,” the recommendation says.

“The proposal will be individually prominent contrary to the cultural resource principles espoused in clause 7.3.2 of the Sullivans Cove Planning Scheme 1997.

“It does not have a respectful relationship to buildings of identified cultural significance, and it will be individually prominent in terms of contrast with neighbouring buildings, by being significantly higher.”

The revamped development application comes with new conditions including that the setback from Runnymede St and Princes Park be increased.

“The officers have consid- ered the amendments proposed by the conditions and have formed the opinion the conditions do not address the reasons for refusal and maintain that even with such amendments, the proposal should be refused.

“It is therefore recommended that the council refuse the proposal for the reasons detailed in the attached planning report, and that the proponents be encouraged to submit a new application responding to the concerns outlined in that report.”