Recent comments on applications from Hobart City Council, TAS

  1. In West Hobart TAS on “Partial Demolition,...” at 48 Salvator Road, West Hobart TAS 7000:

    J Lennon commented

    Objections
    1.Owners propose to build right on boundary which will not enable HCC rubbish trucks to continue to 3 point turn at end of our right of way rd. Wheeling bins to bottom of hill arduous and hazardous for residents.
    2. Building and construction vehicles will tear up the right of way access road that locals access to their homes.
    3. Build will restrict ability for emergency services to turn safely at end of road.
    4. Obstruction of view and changed view which could devalue other properties
    5. Complete inconvenience (noise, dust, road blocks, unsightly) for entire project affecting existing, successful local airbnb business
    6. Given owner is a Greens representative, residents feel there will be bias in favour of owner to approve build
    7. Build will degrade the current beautiful bush/city/water outlook for all current residents of street and instead we will be looking at more cars and house walls
    8. Build will affect/displace local wildlife and habitats

  2. In Hobart TAS on “Farmers' Market” at 60 Melville Street (hobart Central Car Park) Hobart Tas 7000:

    Abbey Radford commented

    Parking garage needs to be later then 6.30pm people rush to get there car out before they close. This is an constant issue when you work late.

  3. In Hobart TAS on “Dwelling” at 29 Hillcrest Road, Tolmans Hill TAS 7007:

    Tony Allingham commented

    This is surely not 16 Elizabeth Street as stated!

  4. In North Hobart TAS on “Alterations and Partial...” at 20 Pitt Street, North Hobart TAS 7000:

    Robert Morris commented

    Parking in North Hobart is very limited. This application should only be approved if ALL residents' and visitors' cars can realistically be parked off the street. Recent developments in North Hobart have been approved without a commensurate increase in available parking are most detrimental to the amenity of the area. This bad planning has increased the relative desirability of Moonah, Kingston and the Eastern Shore for banking, dining and socialising.

  5. In West Hobart TAS on “Partial Demolition,...” at 166 Warwick Street, West Hobart TAS 7000:

    Karen Evans commented

    Good afternoon

    Since 166 Warwick street started operating the following things have happened:
    1. Overwhelming cars in Warwick street from Harrington street right up the length of the street with visitors ( to the point when I have a permit I cannot park in Warwick street
    2. The people that frequent 166 Warwick Street stand in the middle of the street directing traffic to stop so their visitors can park in the street or park on their car park.
    ( this creates more disruption to the flow of traffic in a busy street and I am now aware they have not any right to do this given they do not wear high vision clothing or anything to show they are traffic management so hopeful your staff will speak to them about this )
    3. There are so may other areas around Hobart that Could have this large volume of visitors without the impact that currently becomes a nightmare to me given I do not have off street parking to my home and have lived there for over twenty years and haven't had this much problem in twenty years so hopefully you will understand why i have sent this message

  6. In West Hobart TAS on “Partial Demolition,...” at 166 Warwick Street, West Hobart TAS 7000:

    commented
    Hidden by site administrators
  7. In West Hobart TAS on “Partial Demolition,...” at 166 Warwick Street, West Hobart TAS 7000:

    Marcia Breen commented

    Good afternoon, I note this application is under assessment.
    Without being aware of the contents of this application I am concerned with regard to an increase in the volume of vehicular traffic in and around Warwick Street.
    Residents of Warwick Street are regularly impacted by visitors to 166 Warwick Street in the form of traffic disruption, parking congestion and questionable traffic control. I have previously written to Council on this matter.
    Kindly advise when the application will be made public for public to make their submissions.
    Thank you for your assistance.
    Public interest disclosure: I have not made a donation or gift to a Councillor or Council employee.

  8. In Sandy Bay TAS on “Partial Demolition,...” at 73 View Street, Sandy Bay TAS 7005:

    David Smith commented

    Extremely disappointing the chimney was pulled down without council approval. This is in Breach of the heritage overlay (golf links estate)

    They should be forced to replace the chimney as this was pulled down without permission and multiple properties in the area have done the correct process of applying and have been told to leave their chimney.

    This should be a great property to make an example of, that the “don’t ask permission, ask forgiveness” doesn’t stack up to the HCC

  9. In Sandy Bay TAS on “Partial Demolition,...” at 73 View Street, Sandy Bay TAS 7005:

    David Smith commented

    Extremely disappointing the chimney was pulled down without council approval. This is in Breach of the heritage overlay (golf links estate)

    They should be forced to replace the chimney as this was pulled down without permission and multiple properties in the area have done the correct process of applying and have been told to leave their chimney.

    This should be a great property to make an example of, that the “don’t ask permission, ask forgiveness” doesn’t stack up to the HCC

  10. In Battery Point TAS on “Change of Use to from...” at 95 Hampden Road Battery Point Tas 7004:

    David Bahr commented

    Congratulations to the owner at the time who refurnished the upstairs bedooms, etc. I would never have thought of doing that during my time. Not until I had sold the property did I realise the answers to all of my problems.

  11. In West Hobart TAS on “Subdivision (Boundary...” at 168 Warwick Street, West Hobart TAS 7000:

    Jennifer Bond commented

    As a resident of Henry Street, I am interested in any planning application for 168 Warwick Street. The owner of the block has, in the last few months done extensive alterations to the house and laid gravel over the Henry Street access.

  12. In West Hobart TAS on “Subdivision (Boundary...” at 168 Warwick Street, West Hobart TAS 7000:

    Peter commented

    Council rejected an earlier application to develop a large internal block because of poor access. There's a very narrow driveway to 168 Warwick Street, or via Henry Street, off Patrick Street. There's no detail in the current application (PLN-20-47) to indicate boundary changes, or if this is further attempt to develop the block.

  13. In Tolmans Hill TAS on “Dwelling” at 3 Correa Place, Tolmans Hill TAS 7007:

    John Bender commented

    I cant find any plans on the Council web site for 3 Correa Place. Can you email me the plans or a link to the plans?

  14. In North Hobart TAS on “Change of Use to Visitor...” at 28 Ryde Street, North Hobart TAS 7000:

    Jodi Harrison commented

    Too many houses being changed to visitor accommodation and hosted remotely. It should either be available for residents or owned and hosted locally as guest accommodation.

  15. In West Hobart TAS on “New Application” at 26 Lower Jordan Hill Road West Hobart Tas 7000:

    Lena Bokma commented

    I too, am concerned about the effect this development will have on parking in the street. The street is very narrow and is often difficult to navigate. My car has been side swiped recently, as have a number of other cars.The main house at no 26 will have no off street parking and the 5 extra residences will greatly increase traffic in the street. I'm also concerned about the loss of green space. Climate change is causing hotter summers and more frequent heavy rain. We know trees help to absorb heat and green space helps absorb rainfall. It's obvious we need more green space, not less. This development will take away a large private garden reducing the the number of trees considerably. Habitat for native flora and fauna must also be preserved. Trees and green space are more important than ever. I think this development will be a retrograde step.

  16. In West Hobart TAS on “New Application” at 26 Lower Jordan Hill Road West Hobart Tas 7000:

    Lincoln Fox commented

    Hello, parking is a big issue in this very narrow street , not just with residents but with their visitors and friends cars as well . To see an application with five dwellings on one block of land raises alarm bells and will most likely create frustration , anguish and anger in a very tight knit street where most of the residents know each other by name and respect each other's parking spaces close to their houses , please do the ratepayers of this road fair justice when considering this application as a street full of established people is more important than one persons aspirations and profits.

  17. In North Hobart TAS on “Subdivision (One Additional...” at 21 Carr Street, North Hobart TAS 7000:

    Jodi Harrison commented

    Wyvenhoe was the home of the one of the earliest political leaders of Tasmania and should not be cut up and changed. Many aspects of the garden are quite historic and it would be lovely to see it restored to it's former glory rather than dissected for greed.

  18. In Mount Nelson TAS on “Two Multiple Dwellings” at 329 Nelson Road, Mount Nelson TAS 7007:

    P. Sedwick commented

    I am the owner of an immediately adjacent property. Is it possible to gain more information on what is being planned in terms of "two multiple dwellings" -- height, location on block, etc.? Thank you.

  19. In Mount Nelson TAS on “Alterations and Carport” at 320 Nelson Road, Mount Nelson TAS 7007:

    Rhonda Wood commented

    Will the carport and alterations change the overall existing height of the building? This could block sun, light and views of surrounding homes.

  20. In North Hobart TAS on “Change of Use to Visitor...” at 18 Wignall Street, North Hobart TAS 7000:

    Robert Morris commented

    If there is not adequate off-street parking for all visitors' vehicles, I oppose this application and it should be rejected. Many streets in residential areas of Hobart are becoming increasingly congested due to increased traffic and reduced available street parking. This incremental change is making Hobart less convenient and less attractive to residents; it is slowly destroying the quality of life in Hobart.

    In order to preserve and maintain the quality of life of the residents of Hobart, any development application whether residential or commercial, should only be approved if it can demonstrate that there will be adequate convenient nearby parking following the development.

    Over the last decade or so, Hobart City Council has approved the incremental change of North Hobart from an accessible desirable entertainment, dining and residential area to an over-crowded area with very little available parking.

    After dining at North Hobart restaurants and doing my banking in North Hobart for many years, I now find that Moonah is becoming more and more attractive. Many friends and associates share my views.

    In my opinion, Hobart City Council's first priority should be to act in the interests of the residents of Hobart. The interests of tourists and developers may frequently differ from the interests of residents.

  21. In Sandy Bay TAS on “Change of Use to Visitor...” at 1 Cheverton Parade, Sandy Bay TAS 7005:

    Sandra Moroney commented

    Change of use to visitor accomodation , 1Cheverton Parade Sandy Bay. Hopefully enough off street parking will be provided . I live in the area , and the amount of vehicles parking in street is beginning to be a problem.

  22. In New Town TAS on “Demolition, New Building...” at 52 New Town Road New Town Tas 7008:

    Alison Smith commented

    I hope adequate off street parking is provided as this area is congested with cars during the week.

  23. In South Hobart TAS on “Proposed Ancillary Dwelling” at 340 Strickland Avenue South Hobart Tas 7004:

    Michael Berry commented

    We express concern that the building proposed is unable to meet the regulations of building in a bushfire prone area and that it will increase the risk of fire-spread to other properties. We object to the proposal on these grounds.

    - According to definitions in TFS’ ‘Guidelines for development in Bushfire prone areas of Tasmania’:

    - The area clearly meets the definition of bushfire prone area (houses were burnt/lost in the same area in 1967): Dense areas of contiguous forest (not zoned residential) within 100m;

    - The slope angle is steep (>15/20%) and the slope aspect (NE) presents as vulnerable to winds associated with dangerous fire conditions;

    - The area is highly forested and vegetated, with a huge fire fuel load, making fuel travel through the canopy and crown fires very likely;

    - Not possible to create the required Building Protection Zone stipulated by TFS (given the above conditions) within property boundaries;

    - Not possible to create the required Fuel-Modified Buffer Zone stipulated by TFS (given the above conditions) within property boundaries.

    Increased fire risk by spread from building to building is a serious concern.

    The proposed building would be unable to meet the requirements for an adequate Bushfire Hazard Management Plan (BHMP) as defined by TFS.

    There is a demonstrable increase in dangerous bushfire conditions in Tasmania in recent years. This year there were catastrophic conditions resulting in large scale, devastating bushfires threatening homes and communities in close proximity to forested areas. The bushfire season is increasing in duration. Given these conditions, the approval of this proposed new dwelling in a, quite frankly, obviously dangerous location in terms of fire-risk, would be irresponsible, and set a very dangerous precedent.

  24. In North Hobart TAS on “Demolition and 4 new...” at 256 Brooker Avenue North Hobart Tas 7000:

    Tomas O'Meara wrote to local councillor Helen Burnet

    256 Brooker Avenue has come before the HCC previously and was accepted that it is a historical place of significance. Im not sure if it can even be up for demolition?? As I recall the address was marked for the Local Historical Heritage Places Databank..

    Delivered to local councillor Helen Burnet. They are yet to respond.

  25. In North Hobart TAS on “Demolition and 4 new...” at 256 Brooker Avenue North Hobart Tas 7000:

    Kevin G Arkless wrote to local councillor Anna Reynolds

    As the adjoining owner of this property I would like to add to my previous comments !
    This propose building is 9.45 meters high by oprox 29 meters long and 14.9 wide box towering over my modest 3 meter high house .
    The loss of this old Heritage house by the wreckers ball should not be allowed as developers continue to seek these large blocks of this type of house ,soon they will be a thing of the past .
    Submit a Representation to Council on their form download from the net they might listen and act ?

    Delivered to local councillor Anna Reynolds. They are yet to respond.

  26. In North Hobart TAS on “Demolition and 4 new...” at 256 Brooker Avenue North Hobart Tas 7000:

    Janina wrote to local councillor Anna Reynolds

    I believe this would be another loss to Hobart's Heritage (even though it isn't listed).
    It depicts the architecture of the time and is still a good example, just needs a coat of paint and some general maintenance.
    To allow this to be demolished would be following in the footsteps of the destruction of beautiful old buildings in Battery Point (look at the monstrosities filling their space – Prince of Wales Hotel is a classic example of a bad taste build with a quick financial return) and replaced with ugly eyesores of building with no character. This is typical of investors after a quick return on their money.
    Don’t allow North Hobart go the same way please! The Planning Scheme is too lax at present.

    Delivered to local councillor Anna Reynolds. They are yet to respond.

  27. In North Hobart TAS on “Demolition and 4 new...” at 256 Brooker Avenue North Hobart Tas 7000:

    Alistair wrote to local councillor Jeff Briscoe

    I feel that the proposed demolition of this historical property and its replacement with four generic box apartments would be an absolute travesty. The proposed apartments will not be fitting in with the architecture of the surrounding properties and could potentially diminish the value of neighbouring properties as well.

    Photo of Jeff Briscoe
    Jeff Briscoe local councillor for Hobart City Council
    replied to Alistair

    Thanks for this

  28. In North Hobart TAS on “Demolition and 4 new...” at 256 Brooker Avenue North Hobart Tas 7000:

    Rosanna Cameron wrote to local councillor Anna Reynolds

    I am not in favour of this Development. But, my fundalmental objection is that the Developemnt being carried out by people who are not from Hobart or Tasmania. We should not be allowing overseas buyers (as I have been told these are) to buy up our properties. They have no feeling for, or interest in Local streetscape or history. Their only interest is in the money that can be made. These proffits are not for Tasmania or even Australia. Why do we allow overseas buyers to purchase in our country? It is very difficult for an Australian to purchase in many overseas countries.

    Delivered to local councillor Anna Reynolds. They are yet to respond.

  29. In North Hobart TAS on “Demolition and 4 new...” at 256 Brooker Avenue North Hobart Tas 7000:

    Mark Williams commented

    The current building is actually an eye sore and has no heritage value whatsoever. Demolition would in fact improve the area and also building new units would assist in the lack of supply in area. Move on people!

  30. In North Hobart TAS on “Demolition and 4 new...” at 256 Brooker Avenue North Hobart Tas 7000:

    Claire Gordon commented

    Please don’t demolish this beautiful old home. Hobart as such a rich history and buildings such as this are part of this history. Also the plans for the new structure do not seem in keeping with the other dwellings in this area. Surely this will not be approved?

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