Recent comments on applications from Northern Territory Lands Group, NT

  1. In Bees Creek NT on “Subdivision to create 33 lots” at 176 Bees Creek Rd, Bees Creek, NT:

    Peter & Lorna Lantzke commented

    Here we go again, another greedy developer wanting to downsize blocks from traditional 2 hectare for one purpose, to make more money for them selves. While existing owners suffer the consequences.

    2 hectares were chosen as a suitable size for rural living life style & having personally lived on a 5000m2 property for a short period of time, is definitely not rural living.

    The local residences will suffer with the onslaught of many more vehicles on our roads. Ground water will suffer if not deep sewered, birds & wild life will suffer with loss of habitat & with the introduction of many more cats & dogs. (way too many already)

    2 hectares is the proven ideal lot size for rural living.

    Sewerage is a major concern with no details of sewerage on proposed plan.

    At least 50% of traffic would be channeled onto Holly Road, Lowther Road then onto Carambola Road through to Coolalinga Shopping Centre. Living on Carambola Road we already have enough through traffic from Woodlea estate to Coolalinga Shopping Centre.

    We definitely do not support this proposal in its currant form.

  2. In Darwin City NT on “Additions to an existing...” at 91 Woods St, Darwin City, NT:

    Nick Kirlew commented

    Not suitable.
    It would be questionable that placing 6 containers will contribute to the amenity of the location. There are storage facilities that are fit for purpose with in reasonable distance of the facility.
    Nick Kirlew
    Convener PLan: the Planning Action network Inc.

  3. In The Gardens NT on “Car park extensions to an...” at 73 Gilruth Ave, The Gardens, NT:

    Hugh Bradley commented

    The notification as received does not give enough information to be able to give sensible comment. The only issueI see from the plan provided is that the car park is apparently going to cover some areas shown in blue_ (water areas/ aboriginal burial poles?).
    The principle issue here for the public is the retention of access to the beach and reasonable public usage of the foreshore area... Remember NTG once promised that all our foreshore areas would be kept open and available to the public.

  4. In Darwin City NT on “Hotel (container bar, 2 x...” at 33 Cavenagh St, Darwin City, NT:

    Hugh Bradley commented

    It would be helpful if we knew what building is proposed . I believe these buildings should be preserved

  5. In The Gardens NT on “Rezone land to a SU...” at 25 Blake St, The Gardens, NT:

    Hugh Bradley commented

    I am currently in Bhutan and unable to get access to documentation
    The proposal in in area zoned for community purpose.
    The NTG has indicated it will not approve a change of purpose so I wonder if this is a real proposal.
    Any proposal to fill the land with residential development is likely to be opposed by the local community including myself.
    Please advise if there is any time limit on comments

  6. In Brinkin NT on “Three-storey single dwelling” at 18 Claymore Cct, Brinkin, NT:

    Niki commented

    This development will negatively impact the quite, private area of Claymore Circuit and tightly held suburb of Brinkin.
    As a Brinkin home owner and occupier since year 2000, this would open the gates to many more similar developments in the area. This development will put a strain on immediate infrastructure, add noise pollution and increase traffic in the street, which will undoubtedly increase the amount of accidents - not to mention result in a very unsafe street for neighboring children who enjoy afternoon play time on the quiet street!!
    I believe this type of development will decrease surrounding property prices and have a huge impact on Brinkin's proud, family orientated presence.
    Definitely not a positive addition to the street or suburb.

  7. In Larrakeyah NT on “70 serviced apartments and...” at 1 Montoro Ct, Larrakeyah, NT:

    Dale Webster commented

    I have no issue with the holiday accommodation section of this proposal but am extremely concerned about the "multiple dwelling" aspect. It is not clear if these dwellings are also holiday accommodation or destined for rental on the open market. Darwin is saturated with units - as a unit owner I have had to drop my rent more than $200 a week to keep it occupied and it has dropped by a third in value. Please consider looking after the people who have already invested in the city and are struggling before approving ANY unit development proposals in this area.
    thank you,
    Dale Webster

  8. In White Gums NT on “Transport Terminal” at 900 Ilparpa Rd, White Gums, NT:

    Richard & Adriana Bugg commented

    Put simply, this is a rural area where people live on large blocks, bought at great expense to enable some peace and quiet.

    The existing (since February 2018) and planned activity at 900 Ilparpa Road is already causing a lot of noise for 12 hours a day, 7 days a week.

    This isn't simply a 'storage area' for transportable buildings. This is now a noisy area with constant unloading / loading of large road trains with noisy beeping forklifts. Tradesmen carrying out maintenance of the transportable buildings with large generators running throughout the day and occasionally at night.

    The noise and dust from all these activities is much elevated from the house we bought in this beautiful location. The view from our property has deteriorated as we now overlook transportable buildings, toilets (which the tradesmen use) and numerous other large machines and equipment.

    I find it hard to believe that this is the only location available for this industrial activity. Regardless of any official zoning labels put onto properties in this area, the fact is, there are established residents living around this new transport terminal who live here because of the rural environment and the peace and quiet it provides.

  9. In Stuart Park NT on “Change of use from...” at 3 Duke St, Stuart Park, NT:

    Jason Dyer commented

    Dear Sir/Madam
    Please note our objection from the owners of 1/2/3/4 -5 Duke Street, Stuart Park via our Body Corporate committee managed by Jan Rodgers Real Estate. My property 2/5 and 1/2 is immediately opposite this proposed site.
    The main points for objection are:
    1 This area is transforming into a quality residential area. A motor repair area is only a “discretionary activity” and backs immediately and opposite to residential properties. 5 Duke Street already has submitted noise complaints in recent weeks from our complex for late night noise. I am also regularly disturbed by car revving, and hammering from the complex. A block of units also face the front of the non-approved repair shop and noise goes straight towards this block of units. Our Body Corp is supportive of this being used for it’s approved storage purpose. This type of business does not fit into the ambience of the area. Having received complaints already while operating covertly. We are concerned if approved, how much increase in noise will occur,
    2 Parking is already an issue on Voyager Street, and this business will bring more vehicles into the area with subsequent noise from compressors, engines revving etc. Darwin City Council in the last 24 Months have imposed parking restrictions on this street to reduce parking and noise problems.
    3 The applicant is an established vehicle rental dealership trading seven days a week 24/7 - Territory Fleet Leasing” ie Thrifty Rent a Car. The Body Corporate committee is very concerned that this facility will be used at odd hours to accomodate this large car rental tourist business. This would be out of character for the residential style area of Voyager and Duke Street. There is no other Commercial style business on these two streets!
    4 There is a history of the residents of Voyager Street opposing the change of aspect and life style of the street when 8 Voyager Street was attempted to be rezoned and was rejected by the Planning Minister, note PA2011/0866. Longer term Duke and Voyager Street will become more dense residential style accomodation. This development will become an anachronism to the area if approved.
    I thank the NT Lands Group for considering this joint objection from 1/2/3/4 Duke Street as residents immediately impacted by this application and their request to stop this application proceeding from this large motor vehicle rental car operator.

    Thank you

    Jason Dyer
    On behalf of 5 Duke Street Body Corporate Complex holders.

  10. In Parap NT on “Rezone from Zone SD (Single...” at 6 Weddell St, Parap, NT:

    Kerry blohm commented

    I don't see the need for this area to rezone to Multiple Dwellings for a couple of reasons. First there are plenty of new structures that are currently without tenants ie an over abundance at the moment and for the forseable future. Secondly, I feel the character of Parap and Fannie Bay will change for the worse. These large blocks and older tropical homes make our suburb.
    Try and get a car park at Parap or Fannie Bay shops!

  11. In Parap NT on “Service station” at 2 Railway St, Parap, NT:

    Ashley Challis commented

    Another service station just a few hundred meters from the new United? This stretch is already busy with the two sets of traffic lights.
    A more appropriate location for another petrol station would be between the city and Woolner off Tiger Brennan where there is adequate space to include turning and merging access lanes.

  12. In The Gap NT on “36 x 2 bedroom multiple...” at 45 Gap Rd, The Gap, NT:

    Maricar Alcedo commented

    As a near by land owner, I fully support this application. It's appears as an exciting development in a great location close to the town centre.

  13. In The Gap NT on “22 x 2 bedroom, 2 x 3...” at 19 South Tce, The Gap, NT:

    Maricar Alcedo commented

    I fully support this application as the owner of a nearby property in The Gap. This part of Alice Springs has amazing potentional due to its proximity to the Town Centre, and extensive nearby community facilities and attractions.

  14. In The Gap NT on “22 x 2 bedroom, 2 x 3...” at 19 South Tce, The Gap, NT:

    Jason Quin commented

    Dear NT Lands Group

    As someone living in the Gap and an active member of the Alice Springs community, I'm conscious that access to affordable accommodation is a significant issue.

    Has affordability and/or mixed use (incorporating community housing) been part of the development consideration for this site?

    I look forward to your reply.

    Thanks in advance.

    Jason Quin

  15. In The Gardens NT on “24 x 1, 54 x 2 and 37 x 3...” at 4 Blake St, The Gardens, NT:

    Sharon Scurr commented

    Dear Northern Territory Lands Group,

    I oppose the proposed development at 4 BLAKE ST, THE GARDENS.

    My reasons are as follows:

    First, it is incongruous to even contemplate building a tower complex in the tiny enclave suburb of The Gardens. The surrounding dwellings are all one or two storeys. Any proposed development should be capped at two storeys.

    Second, this is Community Purpose land and should never have been rezoned. The actions of the Minister at the time were disgraceful. The community voted recently and elected a new government, which reflects community opinion on the subject.

    Third, I attended a community meeting on this site and many local residents also attended, unanimously opposed to any development or tower on this site. Community Purpose land. Community meeting. Community totally opposed to the construction of a tower. The message is clear.

    Fourth, I understand the developer is proposing 115 units in a 7 storey building with commercial on ground level and basement carparking for 252 cars.
    Roughly this will be 115 units over 6 stories which is an average of 20 units per floor over two tower blocks.
    From the drawings the proposed construction is column and suspended cement slab and is architecturally featureless.
    There does not appear to be any set backs, no significant landscaping and the pool looks undersized therefore tokenistic.
    The chosen design is to maximise the number of apartments which can be squeezed on the block rather than what is the best design for the block and the location.
    There appears to be no consideration or attempt to be sympathetic to the character of the surrounding suburb which is low density detached housing and town houses.
    This is what you might describe as an Hong Kong style development.
    The design gives no consideration to the Darwin climate, through passive cooling design features such as orientation, maximising shade and cross breezes - without these architectural considerations the occupants will be dependent on airconditioning and be burdened with an estimated electricity cost of $6,000 to $12,000 per year or more.
    This development is a hit and run. It is designed to maximise the capital return to the developer with no consideration to the ongoing operational costs, comfort or experience of the occupants long term.
    If this development goes ahead it will be called a failure of public policy.
    There is a case for government intervention to stop these suburban hot boxes which will ultimately become the slums of tomorrow.

    Fifth, my view across the golf course towards the Gardens will be marred by this development. My view currently is beautiful, but this tower will be ugly.

    I sincerely hope you will heed the views of local residents like myself and decline this application. Thank you.

    Yours sincerely,

    Sharon Scurr

  16. In Parap NT on “Rezone from Zone SD and SD7...” at 6 Jones Pl, Parap, NT:

    Lisa Williams commented

    Good Afternoon,

    I think it would be madness to allow this buiding to go up. THe resources in Parap are already under strain with the high density biuing that has occured inthe past few years. Parking is a nightmare on most streets already and this will only make it worse. I plead with Michael Gunner to stop this immediately.


    Lisa Williams

  17. In Darwin NT on “59 motel suites (including...” at 13 Shepherd St, Darwin City, NT:

    David Jeffery Norton commented

    13 Shepard Street excavation next to 82, Woods Street, Darwin 0886

    Dear Sir,
    I am the Chairman of the 82 Woods Street, Darwin, 0800
    Next door at 13 Shepard Street the builder has dug a three story hole under the boundary fence . He is building a 10 story building right up to the boundary line and wants to put his scaffolding on our property blocking the car parks and destroying our garden.

    We have received no notice that he was building on our boundary line until the hole was dug and we were covered in a thick coat of dust.

    He expects us to come up with a solution. He has totally removed all the land on his block.

    Can he do this without communicating with us first?
    What planning and building protections do we have.

    Our garden is being destroyed, parks are under threat of falling into a three story hole and our buildings foundations maybe at risk,

    I have intrusted the Body Corporate Managers (Whittles) to inform the builder that we will put forward a formal resolution to a special meeting of the Body Corporate after taking professional advice. And that he is welcome to submit his scaffolding plans and his proposals to the general meeting for their consideration. You can also advise him that his proposals will be accepted for consideration constructively and without prejudice.

    It is extraordinary that an experienced builder does not know due process or building regulations are. He has made no detailed reference to the building code and expects us as private citizens to know what the development process is . Expecting the neighbouring property, us to come up with a solution to a situation he has created. He has not presented any notice of his intent to remove 13 Shepard Street from the landscape and replace it with a three story hole. He decided where the boundary is and removed the fence supports.
    The only communication with the builder has been oral over the telephone, with no formal plans to make an informed decision.
    As the Chairman of the body Corp it is my roll to voice and sign off on the behalf of the Body Corporate in line with existing policy, the budget or formal resolution within the Unit Titles Act. In this case policy is silent and no recommendations have been put to the Body Corporation via the Body Corporate Managers (Whittles) as of yet, as the consultation process, be it oral has only began after the excavations commenced and have all but been completed. We are being asked to play catch up with our property on the edge of a precipice that once was 13, Shepard Street.
    No resolution has been made. Myself as Chairman and a committee member Amanda Lingwood are at the assessing the situation stage.
    Not knowing what the process was through Whittles we have instructed the relevant Authorities to be advised of what has happened so that we can inform the Body Corporate of the situation with regard the risks to the Body Corporate with regard to Health and Safety, Structural Risk, inconvenience and loss of amenity, before a recommendation to a special general meeting of the body corporate.
    A letter has been sent to all owners advising them of the situation.

    As the Chairman of the 82 Woods Street, Darwin, 0800 I have instructed Whittles to attain quotes on attaining legal advice as to the legality of what the builder has done and our rites and responsibilities in dealing with this situation. Including how much the committee can spend in regard to the Unit Titles Act in obtaining legal advice without calling a Special General Meeting.
    Also the amount the committee can spend in regard to the Unit Titles Act in obtaining the services of a surveyor without calling a Special General Meeting.

    As Chairman of the 82, Woods Street Darwin Body Corporate I have formally instructed Whittles Body Corporate Managers not to permit access to the Builders and his representatives onto our property without formal consent from the committee. And to advise the Builder that we expect to him make safe the boundary fence and the land on our side of the boundary.

    Also to inform the builder to conduct his construction of his building on his side of the boundary line and not to disturb or damage the garden and or any part of our property.
    The trees have ropes tied around them supporting the boundary fence which is damaging the trees and putting the boundary safety in question and the sprinkler system has screed coated over it. This was done without consent. The builder has to rectify this damage.

    Please advise.

    Yours sincerely

    David Jeffery Norton
    Chairman 82, Woods Street, Darwin Body Corporate.

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