Recent comments on applications from Clarence City Council, TAS

  1. In Montagu Bay TAS on “1 Lot Subdivision” at 10 Loinah Road, Montagu Bay, TAS:

    Zac commented

    This is clearly Zoned Community purpose and reasons to change are not discussed. If this is being removed from Community what is replacing it? Another Community asset demolished to benefit who?

    on the Ad on which was used to sell it "The property is zoned Community Purpose which will create opportunities for a developer looking at community use programs"

    "This is a rare opportunity to secure a unique property in a tightly held location. Previously St James’ Anglican Church, the property is in great condition and sits proudly on a gently sloping and very generous land parcel of 891 sqm taking in gorgeous river, city and mountain views."
    Lets demolish it...

  2. In Howrah TAS on “Visitor Accommodation (10...” at 15 Howrah Road, Howrah, TAS:

    Katherine Denney commented

    While Tasmania is desperate for new residences and first-time buyers find it so hard to get onto the property ladder, I feel such a development should be for residential accommodation, not visitor accommodation. Why can't property development be 'for people, not profit' for a change?

  3. In Bellerive TAS on “Change of Use to Dwelling” at 1 Cambridge Road, Bellerive, TAS:

    Zac Shutt commented

    This property should be used for something more productive for the community. Prime location for shops and restaurants that the growing community requires.

  4. In Rokeby TAS on “48 Lot Subdivision” at 80 Burtonia Street, Rokeby, TAS:

    Dennis Matthews commented

    I urge the Clarence Councillors to seriously consider any negative ramifications of this project. If this project does not IMPROVE the lifestyle of existing residents, why would you approve it?
    As with any real estate project, the existing residents welfare and wellbeing must not be negatively impacted. Infrastructure, facilities, schools, medical and child care must not be put under strain with the additional residents.

    In making their decision on this project, Councillors should ensure that there is no pressure from State Government, nor a sense of obligation to approve a project that may ease accommodation issues in this city. Houses will be here for many decades, but accommodation issues may be solved in a couple of years with proper decision making.
    Rokeby ratepayers would be appalled if Councillors approved a project that would effectively "dump" new residents into the suburb whose services are already under strain.
    This may be a case of "Less is more"...

  5. In Rokeby TAS on “48 Lot Subdivision” at 80 Burtonia Street, Rokeby, TAS:

    Barry Taylor commented

    The proposal of 48 lot subdivision by All Urban Planning Pty Ltd and Mission Australia for 80 Burtonia Street Rokeby, in not only offensive but also insulting the intelligence of long-standing residents of Rokeby. Along with the actual design, which looks like a prison complex, it states that 53 families or more will be placed into an area about the size of one and a half AFL ovals, with the construction of forty seven 2 bedroom units plus a building block of one bedroom places of unclear, to me, building type.

    Besides the drainage and traffic problems (for which a survey was conducted over 2 x 1-hour surveys in December 2017 and May 2019 covering Burtonia Street, Hart Place and Tollard Drive), which is ludicrous - pedestrian and vehicle traffic are a lot heavier than is indicated in this survey and there are many crashes along with continual hoon driving.

    With the building of this complex there is additional risk to the safety of children attending the adjacent Rokeby Infant and Primary School with added traffic and closure of the underground pedestrian tunnel.

    I understand the State Government is under enormous pressure to provide housing, as the homeless numbers climb, but this area is not the place, there are no medical facilities in the area - the Clarence Plains Community Health Centre (80 Burtonia Street) indicated on the plans, has not been open over twenty years, there is very limited employment opportunities in the area and public transport is a joke. Mission Housing have an unbelievably bad reputation in the area when housing people in the old area, renting out places to people with obvious problems such as addict, unsociable behaviours. Many places are left empty for long periods or unmaintained, which leads to vandalism and good people, which most Rokeby residents are, feeling downhearted with their surroundings. Why build another complex when the current area is neglected and underutilised?

    As a long-time private property owner and resident, I have had discussions with older and young residents in the area around the evasiveness of the Clarence City Council and the Hodgman Government to us ratepayers and voters.

    I ask the Aldermen who vote on the plans if you would have this subdivision in your back yard? I will be asking the Premier, Will Hodgman the same question as I believe the current government has reacted in a knee jerk manner to the housing problem.

  6. In on “43 Lot Subdiv” at 12 St Johns Cle, 9 Prossers Rd & 41 Wellington St, Richmond, TAS:

    Maurice Russell commented

    Re: 43 lot subdivision, Richmond.
    We are the previous owners of 41 Wellington Street Richmond. We bought the land and built the house in 1970 (not 1980 as stated). One of our concerns for objection is the proposed dangerous entry off Wellington Street due to ‘the crest of the hill’. From street level it is quite a blind spot. The photos submitted by the proposed developer are inaccurate. Namely: the photo of Wellington St. looking eastwards was taken standing on the high side of our steep driveway, giving a false road view. Had the photo been taken from edge of road the crest would have been obvious. We assume the steep driveway would be dug out for level entry, therefore making the vision worse.
    The second photo from opposite direction is also inaccurate : the arrow on the photo points more to centre of property as entry, giving the impression there is a clear view for a driver, whereas the actual entry is further down on the lower crest, giving a short vision.
    We disagree with, and oppose, the proposed subdivision.

  7. In on “2 Multiple Dwellings” at 9 Melner Place, Oakdowns, TAS:

    Elena Davey commented

    I have not received any notification that this dwelling is being constructed next to mine. Why have I not received any notification when today is the last day to comment??

  8. In Howrah TAS on “Dwelling” at 44 Skillion Road, Rokeby, TAS:

    Dennis Matthews commented

    Information provided is unclear as to whether this property is in Howrah or Rokeby. Given the progression of house numbers in Skillion Road, 44 is likely to be presently located in Rokeby, not Howrah.
    Although there is an application to move the boundary, even if successful, it might not include 44 Skillion Road. This might impact the value of the property.
    It might be judicious for the owners to confirm the location themselves with Clarence Council rather than rely on real estate agents or builders.
    Clarence Council should advise the owners planning to build this property of where they might stand.

  9. In Lindisfarne TAS on “Awning” at 36 Lincoln Street, Lindisfarne, TAS:

    Peter Lawler commented

    Upon viewing the plans, it appears that the guttering and pipes leading from the guttering connect to nowhere. This can be seen in the cover image, as well as the three images on the last page of the submission.

    I wouldn't normally be bothered by this, except I've previously noticed that this property was dumping the water from their aircon onto the footpath, although they did eventually fix that. I also believe they may have been subject to other complaints about their doorway as well.

    As such, I must request the council ensure the proposal includes sufficient water runoff because the plans do not appear to indicate any whatsoever and may likely cause damage to the footpath via excess water flow that will require repairing the footpath.

  10. In Bellerive TAS on “Change of use to...” at 7A Victoria Esplanade, Bellerive, TAS:

    Peter & Margaret O'Connor commented

    As the proposed development is in a strictly residential area we have some concerns related to this.
    Firstly we have no indication of the planned hours of operation and would object to late hour trading .
    Secondly there are no details provided at this stage with respect to advertising or billboard and external lighting signs.
    Thirdly we are concerned about the traffic flow at this location. The intersection of King Street and The Esplanade is a sharp and difficult one with a potential blind spot.

    We would like all three matters above clarified as part of the considerations for issuing a planning permit .

  11. In Cambridge TAS on “Outbuilding” at 7 Blossom Crescent, Cambridge, TAS:

    Daniel Moore commented

    This development appears to be large on a small block. I think the shed is excessively large for a small block with a large house already on it. The shed is far too close to the street and footpath and will detract from the broader atmosphere of the street. I do not think this application should be allowed to have such a large industrial like shed in the front yard.

  12. In Geilston Bay TAS on “Visitor Accommodation Cabins” at 78 Geilston Bay Road, Geilston Bay, TAS:

    K. Sutherland commented

    Any idea what the name of the company proposing this is?

    Ive read the council minutes where the proposal was rejected, doesnt seem to have a name though... :(

  13. In Warrane TAS on “Community garden” at 18 Heemskirk Street, Warrane, TAS:

    Carol commented

    I think that if the garden is going to be anything like the planning was, it has stood untouched for nearly 12 mths, loads of dirt dumped there months ago it has been vandalised already to put a toilet block so close to someone’s house is a disgrace .I just wonder if they were going to do it next door to you,what would you think? Sell the land and build some much needed accomodation for the homeless.

  14. In Warrane TAS on “Community garden” at 18 Heemskirk Street, Warrane, TAS:

    Angela Leale commented

    I wish to disagree with the proposed garden application. The garden plan has changed since the first planned garden and now my family look out over the dense at a horrible smelly toilet block. This is also creating unwanted people to come and destroy the property which they already have destroyed the fence and the shed already erected. It’s bringing trouble into our street and into our homes.

  15. In Cambridge TAS on “2 multiple dwellings” at 8 Camrise Drive, Cambridge, TAS:

    Daniel Moore commented

    I have concerns about the number of multiple dwelling developments going in on Camrise Drive. Within ~100m from the start of the street, there will be upwards 10 units accross of 5 duel dwelling titles. Each of these two units have three bedrooms.
    With extremely limited access to public transport, it is likely each unit will have multiple cars. With unit having the potential of 3-4 cars, the included parking spaces will quickly reach capacity and there will be insufficient parking on the street for all Camrise residents and visitors.
    Alternatively if these developments will be o, as this street quickly approaches completion, there has been no progress on the promised children play area. These units have extremely limited outside play space; the creation of a play park is important for the developing area and all residents.

  16. In Lindisfarne TAS on “Demolition of existing...” at 1 Rowitta Road, Lindisfarne, TAS:

    Peter Lawler commented

    To whom it may concern,
    Given the incorrect naming of Rowitta Road (Rowitta Street) and Derwent Avenue (Derwent Water Avenue) within the opening pages, I submit that the applicant be asked to re-check their document for any other errors that may have slipped in to preparation and resubmit.
    I request this as a matter of courtesy to neighbours and residents nearby their proposed development so as to ensure the utmost attention has been paid to the proposed facility, as average residents will not necessarily be as familiar with technical.references as the applicant should be and thus may not be in a cross check other claims made in the application.
    In resubmitting, I also ask that the applicant list what errors were identified and corrected between this and any subsequent application.

  17. In on “Hotel and Hospitality...” at 40 & 40a Kangaroo Bay Drive, Rosny Park and 64C, 76 & 78 Cambridge Road, Bellerive, TAS:

    Carmelita Coen commented

    I make this submission in relation to DA 2017/444, Hotel and Hospitality Training School, Kangaroo Bay:
    I am concerned that this development is inappropriate for the site on which it is proposed to be built and for Bellerive. I have seen the new DA containing amendments to the original DA, which has been lodged in an attempt to address the concerns of many residents of Clarence and greater Hobart.

    While it is good to see that an attempt has been made to address concerns about the height and proximity to Cambridge Road of the Hospitality Training School, in essence it does not address issues arising from such a development including
    - the use of Crown Land for Commercial purposes
    - the destruction of the heritage of the site, which was the terminus for the Bellerive-Sorell Railway and, as such, provided a gateway for people and produce between the City and south east Tasmania
    - the loss of public access to this foreshore area
    - the loss of the amenity of this picturesque site, which is unique and the reason why people choose to live in Bellerive, but will be obliterated by the height of the building if this development goes ahead
    - insufficient parking facilities,
    - increased traffic flow,
    - the impact on safety of pedestrians and children going to and from the 3 primary schools in the locality.

    These concerns are not addressed by the new DA.
    Given the rising level of public concern about this development, the Clarence City Council needs to have the courage to walk away from it, go back to the drawing board and return to its original plan for this site, to develop it as a community facility, to enhance the area for public use, not to take it away..

  18. In Geilston Bay TAS on “Partial Change of Use to...” at 271 East Derwent Highway, Geilston Bay, TAS:

    Peter Lawler commented

    Bit concerned about parking requirements, particularly given through not uncommon practice of some people seem to use the parking area to bypass the traffic light control. Apart from that, will be a fabulous addition to the area to have such a facility in our neighbourhood.

  19. In Lindisfarne TAS on “6 lot subdivision” at 6 Natone Street, Lindisfarne, TAS:

    Robert Wyatt commented

    I missed this notice about a 6 lot subdivision at 6 Natone St Lindisfarne. Did the subdivision ensure that the waterfront had a clear easement right of way for future extension of the Clarence Foreshore Trail?

  20. In Geilston Bay TAS on “Visitor Accommodation Cabins” at 78 Geilston Bay Road, Geilston Bay, TAS:

    Pam Garlick commented

    This development will increase traffic and introduce a new type of traffic to this road.

    a) Geilston Bay Road is already suffering because of traffic resulting from dense development of former agricultural land.
    b) The construction of the road - originally gravel - was never intended to support as many vehicles as it presently does.
    c) Despite increased pedestrian use – i.e. increased population, school children accessing public transport on East Derwent Highway, younger children using skateboard, bike track, and sporting facilities generally, walking groups and clubs - there are no footpaths.
    d) There are already difficulties with access to East Derwent Highway caused by increased development, increased heavy vehicle traffic from xxxx bridge and by parental traffic from Lindisfarne North Primary School. The introduction of holiday vehicles to this area is clearly inappropriate and potentially dangerous.
    a) Any development of holiday cabins will attract not only increased traffic, but potentially also caravans and lifestyle/holiday trailers. Common sense would indicate that holiday makers often plan to use a caravan/ motor home in conjunction with cabin accommodation at various points in their journey. This road will not support such vehicles in terms of either width or road construction.
    b) Tarmac width varies from 4.8 to 6.1 metres - guttering on only one side – no footpaths. Current Australian guidelines recommend traffic lane widths of 3.5m as standard. This report finds that lanes below 3.5 metres can operate successfully provided that attention is paid to the local circumstances.
    c) At present if a car is parked on the roadside, the narrow character of the road means that some vehicles already have difficulty proceeding. The road becomes a single carriageway and a very narrow one at that.

    I believe it is vital that the Council take account of the current extensive use of this park and foreshore; remembering that current users, including those who live in the area, are as worthy of consideration as developers or potential tourists.

  21. In Bellerive TAS on “2 Multiple Dwellings (1...” at 78 Hill Street, Bellerive, TAS:

    Katherine Denney commented

    I raise a strong objection to this development on behalf of my parents, who share a boundary with this property. The proposal to build a two-storey dwelling in the backyard of the existing property will seriously and negatively impact on my parents' outlook and the value of their home of 50 years. The existing property on Hill St enjoys a lovely outlook, and the proposed building would too. However, the existing property does not negatively impact my parents, whereas the new dwelling, and its proposed plants, would. Everyone should be able to enjoy the neighbourhood equally, and fairly. It would be grossly unfair to allow this development to go ahead.
    I have included further detail of my objection in a letter to CCC.

  22. In Rosny Park TAS on “Retirement Village” at 38 Gordons Hill Road, Lindisfarne, TAS:

    Mark Duffett commented

    One other thing. It seems a pity to impede access by residents of the development to the network of walking tracks in the Gordons Hill reserves Surely provision could be made to facilitate pedestrian egress through the perimeter fence where this approaches the existing tracks? The response submitted to Council 9 February 2017 quoted below is unsatisfactory in this regard, as it does not address connectivity of current tracks *through* the development site:
    "Q8: Please provide any further detail on proposed modifications to existing tracks and trails on how they are to be altered to provide connectivity around the site
    A8: This response was sent to Council 9 February 2017: The property as private land will be fenced for security. It is not anticipated to modify or alter tracks
    outside of the property."

  23. In Rosny Park TAS on “Retirement Village” at 38 Gordons Hill Road, Lindisfarne, TAS:

    Peter lawler commented

    I speak to support Mark Duffett's comment.

  24. In Rosny Park TAS on “Retirement Village” at 38 Gordons Hill Road, Lindisfarne, TAS:

    Mark Duffett commented

    The application talks a lot about vehicular management plans. However, I could find no acknowledgement of the fact that the Clarence City Council Bicycle Action Plan 2013-2017 calls for routes ('Moderate Intensity Route 10' and 'High Intensity Route 2') to be established along the northern side of the Tasman Highway in the vicinity of the proposed development. Shouldn't this application allow for if not actually facilitate these prioritised bike paths?

  25. In Rose Bay TAS on “1 lot subdivision” at 63 Cornwall Street, Rose Bay, TAS:

    Mark Duffett commented

    I wish to register my disagreement with Susan Hobday's comment. It is eminently sensible to have reasonable development of underutliised land in places like Rose Bay, increasing the number of people that enjoy its privileged position in regard to aspects like access to good nearby schools, transport and recreational infrastructure and proximity to the CBD and major shopping centres. This is far preferable to shoving all development out to urban fringes. Local businesses also benefit from increasing the local population. Local traffic is not that big an issue, and parks for play are plentiful.

  26. In Rose Bay TAS on “1 lot subdivision” at 63 Cornwall Street, Rose Bay, TAS:

    Susan Hobday commented

    While this application does not directly impact on my property I wish to express my concern over the worrying trend of Clarence Council's approval of general "in fill" developments in the Rose Bay area which will, if allowed to continue, spoil the general amenity of the suburb, increase the traffic on the narrow streets and add to the loss of trees. Kaoota Road, Lena street and East Derwent Highway developments are the latest additions of urban ugliness.
    Character homes are also being cloned as rendered look-a-likes.
    If this proposal is approved a beautiful property in Cornwall Street will be lost.
    Please stop approvals of back yard developments. Where are future generations of children expected to get their exercise?

  27. In Howrah TAS on “Extension to trading hours...” at 45 Hance Road, Howrah, TAS:

    Sharon Brown commented

    I would like to firmly object to the extension of trading hours. Opening on Saturday & Sunday is completely unnecessary and would cause a disturbance to local residents. It is mentioned in the application that this is to benefit patients who work full time during the week, however opening until 8pm during weekdays is more than enough time for people to attend after normal working hours. On weekends, most residents are at home. Having the medical centre open creates more traffic and noise and an overall disturbance on the weekend. I really don't see the need when the opening hours during the week is more than enough time for patients to attend (even if they do work full time hours).
    I would like to stress that this is still a residential area, and business opening hours need to be kept only from Monday - Friday.

  28. In Howrah TAS on “Demolition of existing...” at 6 Venice Street, Howrah, TAS:

    Peter & Diane Skeggs commented

    We live at no. 8 Venice st. and recently heard that the plans for development of four 2 storey units at no. 6 have changed to move nearer to our boundary due to an objection from no. 4. We have not been officially informed of this development and need to know if this is the case, We are concerned about the new unit no. 1 throwing a shadow on our property thereby cutting out the light into our lounge room and kitchen windows, areas where we spend a lot of time. We are also concerned about our privacy. Please advise us if this is the case. We realise that the objection date has expired but as we were not informed of the changes to the plans, we feel that our concerns should be addressed.
    Thank you.

  29. In Howrah TAS on “Demolition of existing...” at 6 Venice Street, Howrah, TAS:

    Peter & Diane Skeggs commented

    We live at no. 8 Venice st. and recently heard that the plans for development of four 2 storey units at no. 6 have changed to move nearer to our boundary due to an objection from no. 4. We have not been officially informed of this development and need to know if this is the case, We are concerned about the new unit no. 1 throwing a shadow on our property thereby cutting out the light into our lounge room and kitchen windows, areas where we spend a lot of time. We are also concerned about our privacy. Please advise us if this is the case. We realise that the objection date has expired but as we were not informed of the changes to the plans, we feel that our concerns should be addressed.
    Thank you.

  30. In Roches Beach TAS on “Amenities Block” at 5 Kirra Road, Roches Beach, TAS:

    Robert&June Risk commented

    Objection to this Devloopment proposed site, of Amenits Block.
    After taking to local Residence and Yacht club,while we understand a need for this Development,we feel this is the wrong place on the reserve.Very secluded,unseen from the road,will have to cross the car park,from the beach or their car, could be very danergerous.
    Having been residences here for nearly 50years,we have Experienced,and seen lots of Vandalism on this reserve,wild party,s,improper behaviour,drugs,burnt out stolen cars,broken and burnt fence, graffiti.Yacht club has been gaffito and Damaged many times.Speeding cars are 24/7 coursing dust and rocks to flying around the car park, and always lots of rubbish.Bic come of the track at quite a speed across the car park.
    The Council has helped, over the years,by putting big rocks and Bom-Gates,which has reduced some of these problems,If this Ammenties Block is put on this site all will be undone.Would be the perfect place for Vandolism Unpropert behaviour. between the Yacht and Toilets.
    The Laudaudale Yacht club now use this Area for there Yachts and Traliors on race day. If unavailable will use the car park,coursing more problems.
    A better site would be to the left top courier of the car park near the beach.To be seen down the reserve road to Kirra Road.This would reduce the Vandolism, and be safer.
    Hoe you will lesson to our concerns,and consult with us as long time residence.
    We have seen many Vandolise toilet on our travels, allso Lauderdale,some have been herrendous sights.
    We do not want to look out at the back of a Griffit toilet block from our home.

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts