PlanningAlerts

5 Comments

Create an account or sign in to have your say by adding your own comment.

1. Having looked at the dimensions of the proposed lots it appears that there is very poor utilisation of the available land area under the current proposal. The blocks after the subdivision is done (if approved) are extremely long and narrow and would severely restrict options for building decent residences on the blocks - amenity for the residents would be very poor under the current proposal as any residences would have no option but to be "cheek by jowl" - resulting in issues with extremely close proximity to each other on their adjoining boundaries.

   I think it would be far better and create blocks of much more "usable" proportions with the available land area if the proposal were to create an internal "battle axe" block with its driveway access being part of that title. If the subdivision were to be done that way it would give both blocks the capacity to have reasonable residences built on them.

   I believe that the current proposal should not be approved as submitted - it is not a a well thought out proposal for the reasons I have outlined above.

   If any subdivision should go ahead I can only hope that residences built are not of the currently "in vogue" type of flat topped single pitch roofed dwellings clad in charcoal or black colourbond steel. The proliferation of these cheap and nasty buildings is rapidly becoming a total blot on Launceston's architectural landscape. Unfortunately the subdivision as currently proposed almost forces a builder into constructing such dwellings because of the shape of the resulting blocks. A "battle axe" subdivision would enable much better quality buildings more in keeping with the area.

2. I would like to express my concerns about the proposed subdivision at the rear of 107 Elphin Road Newstead.
   The planned additional crossover is proposed to be placed in the middle of the roundabout at the intersection of Olive and Dalwood Streets, although there is no indication of this on the advertised plan. I am at a loss to understand why an additional crossover in the middle of an intersection can even be contemplated.
   This is a problematic intersection where speeding vehicles traveling south along Olive St proceed through the roundabout on the incorrect side of the road. This is a common occurrence, not an infrequent one.
   Vehicles reversing out from the proposed two lots would increase the hazard. Council may well require that all vehicles leaving the lots do so front first, however this is unlikely to occur, and impossible to police.
   If the property remains in its current two titles, the additional traffic would be half that which is proposed, and would be from a less dangerous part of the intersection.
   It may not be pertinent to this application, but consideration should be given to the likelihood of all the mature trees being removed to allow for the building of two dwellings. If only one dwelling is constructed, then it would be possible for many of the mature trees to be retained. We need to protect all tree cover we can.
   If the application is approved, the extra crossover would require the removal of an approximately 5m flowering gum. This is a feeding tree for critically endangered swift parrots who visit it each year during migration.
   I trust that Council officers will take these issues into consideration, and recommend refusal of this application, resulting in only one additional dwelling being able to ultimately be approved.

3. When I uploaded my first comment a couple of days ago I did not realise that the proposed new crossover was right on the roundabout but having now looked at the site on Google maps satellite view I can 100% agree with SH's comment that allowing a driveway to come out directly onto a roundabout is sheet madness.

   I also completely agree with SH's comments about vegetation removal - developers consistently have a bad habit of doing "scorched earth" developments but when the block sizes are as small and awkwardly shaped as those in this current proposal they are left with few other options. Profit maximisation is pretty much without exception the primary driver so quality and amenity definitely take a back seat.

   In my first comment I also feel into the trap of "assuming" that given the general attitude of the Council to many poor quality proposals a subdivision of some kind was most likely to be approved (maybe even inevitable), which is why I commented on improving the proposal rather than just outright disagreeing with it. However, I neglected to note that my "first preference" would be for no subdivision to be approved at all - unfortunately this would not mitigate the risk of the ugly flat topped boxes type being built in the kind of unit development I also referred to - visual amenity for neighbours is always at the bottom of the list of priorities and does't even get a look in.

4. I too express grave concern regarding the proposal to create 3 blocks from two at 107 Elphin Road; with the vacant lot being at the rear of the house and opening onto Olive street. I submit that it should remain as is; with only one vacant block on Olive street and thus keeping the land as two only lots and two titles. Any new dwellings exiting onto Olive Street would be very close to the round-about at the intersection of Dalwood Av and Olive St. One residential home would create more traffic at or near this T section and Two residents/dwellings would create more and make a serious hazard there.
   Two separate dwellings there would create an unnecessary dangerous traffic hazard. It is a very busy road used to take children to and from the nearby Launceston Preparatory School. Other motorists use it as an access road to many of the houses between Hobbler's Bridge Road and Olive St and surrounding vicinity.
   Council Officers should pay attention to the tall and marvellous trees on the rear block and endeavour to retain all of the best specimens. They put CO2 into the ground and at night give off oxygen, thus our green trees and spaces are "the lungs of the City".
   Consideration should also be given to how two dwellings put onto the rear block will give little space for visitor parking and all parking. The amenity for those living there being close and continues the trend of "homes being closer and closer" with no space for children to play, gardens and significantly small outdoor living space. All the extra covering of the earth with bitumen for driveways contributes greatly to Global warming. We have a duty now to enable gardens and green space and to keep tarmac and driveways at a minimum.
   I ask that the planners involved in decision making about this particular piece of beautiful land give serious consideration to the points highlighted by others and expressed also by myself. Thankyou in anticipation.

5. I would like to agree in the strongest terms with all the above comments regarding this proposal. Particularly any access to the proposed blocks bordering an already problematic roundabout.
   Another cross over here would be positively dangerous.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Launceston City Council. They may consider your submission when they decide whether to approve this application. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment