Help keep PlanningAlerts running for the next year — Your donation is tax deductible.

Recent comments on applications from Clarence City Council, TAS

  1. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. 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

  5. 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 :)

  6. 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.

  7. 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'.

  8. In Sandford TAS on “16 lot subdivision” at 211 School Road, Sandford, TAS:

    Stephen commented

    With the proposed subdivision wouldn't it be appropriate to seal and widen the entire road in that street before going ahead with any approval? 50% of the road running parallel to the proposed site is still unsealed and is used frequently by heavy vehicles carring large loads of rock and gravel.The roar is unlined and half of which is also too narrow to pass other vehicles at all and on top it off it has no lines and signage to notify road users large vehiles will be coming down the hill aand that there is only enough room for one vehicle. Trucks use the unsealed road at a decent speed with limited grip to the road as it is dirt so safety is a major concern here as is the already increasing usage of this road with 0 signs to warn users about it.

  9. In Lindisfarne TAS on “8 Lot Subdivision resulting...” at 163 Gordons Hill Road Lindisfarne, TAS:

    Tony Jeffrey commented

    163 Gordon's hill rd
    I can't believe that you people can approve such a dense development, Gordon's hill rd is hard enough to live on now our beautiful 100 yr old home will be feted by another disgracefully designed housing estate. Obviously you council members don't have a block of units next door to you $ $ $ $ that's all you guys think about whilst declining the value of property in the surroundings in the process. I wake up this morning to find a street light pole in my kitchen window. So this development needs it own street lights, my goodness lets just turn the area in to one big housing commission project area because they work really well, so thanks again for your lack of care and forward thinking. There's a reason families are selling up in Gordon's hill road, have a look in the mirror, to find the answer.

  10. In Rosny Park TAS on “Carpark and office additions” at 30 Gordons Hill Road Rosny Park, TAS:

    Mark Duffett commented

    This proposal should not be approved in its current location. The area of the proposed car park is currently attractively landscaped, with numerous shrubs, hedges and medium-sized trees that have been omitted from the plans presented. This area is one of the most visible, highly trafficked (both foot and vehicle) streetscapes in the city of Clarence. For it to be replaced by bitumen and an 'unobtrusive cyclone fence' (an oxymoronic concept, 2m setback or otherwise notwithstanding) with a large, heavy security gate would be a major reduction to the amenity of the area.

    This gate also poses potential traffic issues for Bligh St, as returning vehicles will have to wait in the road and/or across the footpath for the gate to open (unlike the similar gate further down Bligh St at the police station, which has a substantial off-street driveway leading to it).

  11. In Lindisfarne TAS on “Residential Lifestyle...” at 55 and 75 Gordons Hill Road Lindisfarne , TAS:

    Mark Duffett commented

    I support this development. However, I see problems arising from the location of the main entrance into Gordons Hill Road, mainly for vehicles exiting the development. Its position adjacent to the inside curve of the bend near Selby Place means very difficult visibility of southbound vehicles on Gordons Hill Rd. Moreover, the gradient is such that these descending vehicles are often travelling at considerable speed, in excess of 60 km/h - and this will occur largely irrespective of any extra speed limits that may be introduced.

    I suggest it would be relatively straightforward, requiring minimal change of the current design, to relocate the main entrance around 100 metres further south, closer to the Tasman Hwy overpass. Being on a straight stretch of Gordons Hill Rd, this would give much better sightlines for all traffic approaching the entrance/intersection.

This week