PlanningAlerts

8 Comments

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

1. With regard to this application we would like to express our utmost disapproval for the proposed multiple dwellings on the ‘so-called’ 63A Curzon Street. In recent times the TRC has stated its intention to slow or stop the growth of units in non-appropriate areas within the city (ie: heritage areas). This is one of the few remaining areas that has heritage appeal. To want to destroy such a lovely area with unsightly units is a purely profit-based decision with no regard to the heritage or the area, both past and future. The ‘Toowoomba unit plague’ does nothing to beautify our city. Residents have chosen areas such as these to live in because of their beauty and heritage appeal. Approving this application is another step forward to taking this away.
   We are hoping the council stands by their policy to cut back on the number of units allowed in heritage areas.

   Greed is not always good.

   Also, please note that the online picture attached to this application does not depict the property in question - the application for 63A Curzon Street is a vacant piece of land. The picture is of the neighbouring property – number 63.

2. Attempting to build 3 units on this piece of land will be unsightly and will have a negative impact on the heritage streetscape. As there will not be enough space for adequate garaging of cars on such a small allotment, cars will be parked on the street. Parking cars on that stretch of Curzon Street will be highly dangerous given the school morning and afternoon traffic along Curzon and Mayes Streets

3. Joel R .....its not about not in my backyard attitude. Please correct me if I am wrong on the following facts as I understand them. The full property (now 3 sites) were purchased with intention to remove existing house to enable multiple unit development. Council rejected the application, hence the house remains. This house was sold and is now rented. Units were planned for curzon st but entry and exit were via Arthur St. However, this small block was divided up and sold. I am concerned with parking (residents and visitors) along a very busy street. I would also like to know if the driveway on Curzon St for the house on Arthur St referred to had council approval as I didnt see it come up on planning alert.

4. Seriously Joel R - which developer do you work for? In the right area, with the right SIZED block of land no one will argue your point. However, as you state this is a "blue chip" area where people desire to live (that used to be because there are large blocks of land surrounded by trees not a concrete, high density jungle). It's an area where the residents pay for the privilege of living here, rates are ridiculous - yet we are not entitled to a say as to what development is allowed in our surrounding area. When you have a developer decide to rape the land beside you all for the god almighty dollar - we would love hear your opinion then.

   If you have assessed/scrutinised these plans you will see that the developer has chosen to have extreme high density living on a block of land that is in the big scheme things suited to a family home.

   There is absolutely NO outdoor living/lifestyle attached to any of these units - they will be looking into a fence. There is no landscaping taken into consideration that befits the area at all and let's not forget that these 3 units all require guest car parking x 2 per unit - where is that going?

   You are obviously one of the rare individuals who would be very happy seeing your neighbours block sold, land stripped and filled to capacity with multiple dwellings.

   Also, if you think that this 925sqm would comfortably fit SEVEN 2 bedroom units, you are either delusional or a developer.

5. I noticed council taking our concerns seriously by assessing traffic and driveways this morning at 8.15AM re this property. I would like assessors to be aware that school traffic has lessoned since senior students have finished and sub seniors are in exam period with students away from school eg. At least 5 students of 5 families not needing transport today within 2 houses beside and across from this allotment.

6. I wish to lodge my objection to this proposed development. It is in no way in keeping with the character of the area. If the council continues to approve unit developments in heritage/character areas, those areas will be ruined. I implore the council to cease approving unit developments in area where they are not complimentary.

   The council wants more people living in the 'nodes'- close to services, schools, parks and transport and yet they approved Bunnings on a site that should have been developed as inner city apartments and stores that would have invigorated the northern end of Ruthven Street. This would have been ideal directly opposite the proposed Railway development, but no, the council allows for a historically significant building (Rowlands Pub) to be torn down and most of the 'inner city' area to be turned into a car park.

   I to have written to councilors in the past regarding concerns pertaining to the desecration of heritage/character areas/building only for the councilor (Chris Tait) to subjugate his responsibility to an underling to reply. You are the elected councilor Mr. Tait, have the decency to reply in future

7. Exactly Tony Hill, we did not need a Bunnings and inner city apartments with boutique retail underneath would have been an ideal development for this site.

8. Concerned
   Not to mention the mayhem that will be the story of Simla Street when three buildings are erected on a block of land that now has one house and NO parking in the street already.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Toowoomba Regional 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