Recent comments on applications from Clarence City Council, TAS

  1. 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??

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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 .

  5. 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.

  6. 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... :(

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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 position.to.sufficirntly 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.

  11. 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..

  12. 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.

  13. 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?

  14. 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.

    INCREASED TRAFFIC
    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.
    NEW TYPE OF TRAFFIC
    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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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."

  17. 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.

  18. 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?

  19. 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.

  20. 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?

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. In Bellerive TAS on “Bellerive Breakwater & Pier” at 14A Victoria Esplanade, Bellerive, TAS:

    Kim Shimmin commented

    As a previously a long time resident of Bellerive, I would like to endorse and support this application for pier and jetty in Kangaroo Bay.
    What a fantastic addition this will be to the bay area, The run down area of the current pier beside the hotel is very poorly maintained.
    Whilst I now currently live interstate, l spend at least four months of the year in Bellerive.
    The building of this entry will undoubtedly round of the development of Kangaroo Bay.
    Yours
    Kim Shimmin

  26. In Rose Bay TAS on “1 lot subdivision” at 18 Swinton Place, Rose Bay, TAS:

    Jason Followes commented

    Servicing of sewer as shown will require removal of boundary fencing, and remaking part of the driveway of 70 East Derwent Highway to leave a scar. Servicing via the southern side of the site adjacent the proposed stormwater is a viable option and possibly a more efficient approach in terms of 2 connections one trench and works contained within the developer’s property. This option appears as though it will still allow gravity sewer drainage to the building envelope under the current planning schemes setbacks.

    Stormwater overland flow for a 100 year event appears not to be considered in the current proposal as per the planning scheme E.7.7.1 Stormwater Drainage and Disposal Clause A4, as there does not seem to be a clear path for overflow indicated on the plans. As this site is currently vegetated, the stormwater runoff characteristics will be altered with hardstand landscaping and building works, and this should be considered. Without works on the site, the low point in the proposed new lot in its north west corner, will drain overland flow through the neighbouring land’s shed and backyard in a concentrated manner. A safe solution should be proposed by the developer.

  27. In Geilston Bay TAS on “Change of Use to Takeaway...” at 318 East Derwent Highway, Geilston Bay, TAS:

    Peter Lawler commented

    The PDF provided is of very poor quality and some sections are largely unreadable. I'm unable to make any informed comment except to comment on the name and imagery as it would appear to conflict with some Trademarks held in NSW
    https://www.trademarkify.com.au/list/0/mark/FISHBONE

  28. In Geilston Bay TAS on “Change of Use to Takeaway...” at 318 East Derwent Highway, Geilston Bay, TAS:

    Chiko Rolls are not 'Gormet'. commented

    Suggest the proprietors choose a better name than Fishbone. Songs very unappetizing.

    e.g - Fish & Chips Plus, 5 Star Fish & Chips, 5 Star Takeaway, Crispy Fish & Chips ... options are endless :)

  29. In Lindisfarne TAS on “Canopy - D” at 36 Lincoln Street, Lindisfarne, TAS:

    Peter Lawler commented

    What a truly ugly part of the village this street corner has become. I see nothing in this application that will improve the village aesthetic and arguably will degrade it further by encouraging a business to not seriously consider community desires for the visual appeal of a street-scape.

  30. In Lindisfarne TAS on “Canopy - D” at 36 Lincoln Street, Lindisfarne, TAS:

    Mark Duffett commented

    This garish establishment really detracts from the otherwise attractive renovation of the Lindisfarne village streetscape. This opportunity should be taken to require the proprietors to tone down their colour scheme, or at least vastly reduce the external area of 'Lemon Yellow'.

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