All recent comments on applications from Launceston City Council, TAS

Please don't make assumptions if you don't have all the facts. Making objections to council causes unnecessary complications for those who wish to make improvements/restorations to their much loved homes. While I agree wholeheartedly the beautiful old homes should be saved, it is important to keep things in perspective. Take time to check your information before you decide to make an issue of something that is incorrect.

Hello, will this be public housing? I'm wondering about the effect this will have on the area in terms of drugs and crime. Can you please give me some more information on the nature of this housing? If it's 'affordable housing', what exactly does that mean? Is there a plan to help reduce crime in Ravenswood through planning? You you have any more information on this development (for example the house designs)?

btw, I fully support public housing, I just don't think that it should be concentrated in one area.

Thank you!

Traffic on this road is over capacity already. This will add significant load to the local road system. Also it could potentially put the pub over the road out of business.

I would like to agree in the strongest terms with all the above comments regarding this proposal. Particularly any access to the proposed blocks bordering an already problematic roundabout.
Another cross over here would be positively dangerous.

I too express grave concern regarding the proposal to create 3 blocks from two at 107 Elphin Road; with the vacant lot being at the rear of the house and opening onto Olive street. I submit that it should remain as is; with only one vacant block on Olive street and thus keeping the land as two only lots and two titles. Any new dwellings exiting onto Olive Street would be very close to the round-about at the intersection of Dalwood Av and Olive St. One residential home would create more traffic at or near this T section and Two residents/dwellings would create more and make a serious hazard there.
Two separate dwellings there would create an unnecessary dangerous traffic hazard. It is a very busy road used to take children to and from the nearby Launceston Preparatory School. Other motorists use it as an access road to many of the houses between Hobbler's Bridge Road and Olive St and surrounding vicinity.
Council Officers should pay attention to the tall and marvellous trees on the rear block and endeavour to retain all of the best specimens. They put CO2 into the ground and at night give off oxygen, thus our green trees and spaces are "the lungs of the City".
Consideration should also be given to how two dwellings put onto the rear block will give little space for visitor parking and all parking. The amenity for those living there being close and continues the trend of "homes being closer and closer" with no space for children to play, gardens and significantly small outdoor living space. All the extra covering of the earth with bitumen for driveways contributes greatly to Global warming. We have a duty now to enable gardens and green space and to keep tarmac and driveways at a minimum.
I ask that the planners involved in decision making about this particular piece of beautiful land give serious consideration to the points highlighted by others and expressed also by myself. Thankyou in anticipation.

When I uploaded my first comment a couple of days ago I did not realise that the proposed new crossover was right on the roundabout but having now looked at the site on Google maps satellite view I can 100% agree with SH's comment that allowing a driveway to come out directly onto a roundabout is sheet madness.

I also completely agree with SH's comments about vegetation removal - developers consistently have a bad habit of doing "scorched earth" developments but when the block sizes are as small and awkwardly shaped as those in this current proposal they are left with few other options. Profit maximisation is pretty much without exception the primary driver so quality and amenity definitely take a back seat.

In my first comment I also feel into the trap of "assuming" that given the general attitude of the Council to many poor quality proposals a subdivision of some kind was most likely to be approved (maybe even inevitable), which is why I commented on improving the proposal rather than just outright disagreeing with it. However, I neglected to note that my "first preference" would be for no subdivision to be approved at all - unfortunately this would not mitigate the risk of the ugly flat topped boxes type being built in the kind of unit development I also referred to - visual amenity for neighbours is always at the bottom of the list of priorities and does't even get a look in.

I would like to express my concerns about the proposed subdivision at the rear of 107 Elphin Road Newstead.
The planned additional crossover is proposed to be placed in the middle of the roundabout at the intersection of Olive and Dalwood Streets, although there is no indication of this on the advertised plan. I am at a loss to understand why an additional crossover in the middle of an intersection can even be contemplated.
This is a problematic intersection where speeding vehicles traveling south along Olive St proceed through the roundabout on the incorrect side of the road. This is a common occurrence, not an infrequent one.
Vehicles reversing out from the proposed two lots would increase the hazard. Council may well require that all vehicles leaving the lots do so front first, however this is unlikely to occur, and impossible to police.
If the property remains in its current two titles, the additional traffic would be half that which is proposed, and would be from a less dangerous part of the intersection.
It may not be pertinent to this application, but consideration should be given to the likelihood of all the mature trees being removed to allow for the building of two dwellings. If only one dwelling is constructed, then it would be possible for many of the mature trees to be retained. We need to protect all tree cover we can.
If the application is approved, the extra crossover would require the removal of an approximately 5m flowering gum. This is a feeding tree for critically endangered swift parrots who visit it each year during migration.
I trust that Council officers will take these issues into consideration, and recommend refusal of this application, resulting in only one additional dwelling being able to ultimately be approved.

Having looked at the dimensions of the proposed lots it appears that there is very poor utilisation of the available land area under the current proposal. The blocks after the subdivision is done (if approved) are extremely long and narrow and would severely restrict options for building decent residences on the blocks - amenity for the residents would be very poor under the current proposal as any residences would have no option but to be "cheek by jowl" - resulting in issues with extremely close proximity to each other on their adjoining boundaries.

I think it would be far better and create blocks of much more "usable" proportions with the available land area if the proposal were to create an internal "battle axe" block with its driveway access being part of that title. If the subdivision were to be done that way it would give both blocks the capacity to have reasonable residences built on them.

I believe that the current proposal should not be approved as submitted - it is not a a well thought out proposal for the reasons I have outlined above.

If any subdivision should go ahead I can only hope that residences built are not of the currently "in vogue" type of flat topped single pitch roofed dwellings clad in charcoal or black colourbond steel. The proliferation of these cheap and nasty buildings is rapidly becoming a total blot on Launceston's architectural landscape. Unfortunately the subdivision as currently proposed almost forces a builder into constructing such dwellings because of the shape of the resulting blocks. A "battle axe" subdivision would enable much better quality buildings more in keeping with the area.

After almost 150 years in Launceston we have a developer who wants rid of the organ and another piece of heritage is being threatened. It is clear the the City Baptist group have put some work into trying to solve this problem, but the only solution they have come up with is to break it down and ship it to Victoria.

It IS within the Councils power to keep this organ in place and make it clear to the new owner that the organ needs to be maintained and included in their plans for this space. This new Council was elected with many candidates standing for protecting the heritage of our City. Here is their opportunity.

Surely the organ - just on 150 years old - can be retained?

In fact, due to its heritage and links with John West, the building and its contents should be retained in perpetuity.

The Prince's Square, and most of the buildings around it are part of an historical gem in the town: surviving to this day.

Let's keep it that way.

Oh dear, here we have yet another visually ugly proposal to cram extra dwellings on a suburban block in a residential area. I am not against developments which make better use of some of the large blocks of land in our suburbs, but almost all of these developments that I have seen over the last few years involve unattractive and boxy dwellings built as cheaply as possible (e.g. single pitch roofs). There is no thought being given by developers (or Council) to the negative effects such developments have on the visual amenity of immediate neighbours or the overall impacts on the locale.

With this set of plans I notice that there is a "future lift" space shown - why not install a lift as a part of the initial build? This would make the buildings accessible to people with disability - retro fitting is always more expensive, and developments such as this one often don't go on the market until after completion, which means that the additional costs of retro-fitting are imposed on the PwD. It's a pity the building code does not mandate all 2 story units such as these having lifts fitted from Day 1 - there is a massive shortage of disability friendly housing available, but the shortsightedness and ignorance of builders and developers means they can't see a whole market segment exists which is not being catered for. And catering for disability in builds such as this means that people who become disabled through accident or illness can still stay in their homes.

One thing I have noticed is that despite all the massive awareness raising of hygiene issues as a result of the pandemic (i;e. hand-washing) almost without exception plans that go to Council do not have hand-washing basins in their separate toilets - I wish the building code could be amended to make hand-washing capacity a mandatory element for all separate toilets.

I respectfully object to the granting of this application. I live in this area of Launceston and see increasing homelessness due to increasing short term rentals. There have dire consequences as a result.

I am concerned at the potenial increased traffic flow through the right of way behind the Dunorlan terrace and the Balfour street terraces on to Balfour Street.
The line of sight is inadequate for any increase of traffic flow, even if the
Car space towards Wellington Street was removed it still doesn't comply.
Additionally and more importantly the line of sight for pedestrians is dangerous even now, I have experienced near misses with my family and witnessed first hand when others have been confronted by a car not being able to see or not having the forethought to give way to pedestrians.
I am not opposed to the business's as such, however I am concerned that the car movement study does not give enough weight the existing parking and car movements associated with the rear entrances of Balfour terrace, (numbers 94 and 96 Balfour)
Henry Reed memorial terraces (numbers 98,100,102) and the Wellington Street terrace residents.

There is currently a significant lack of properties available for long term rental in the greater Launceston area - housing that is needed for people to live and work and be a part of the community here. Converting properties into short stay accommodation only compounds this problem. If the Council is serious about helping to address the dire shortage of long term rental stock for local people then it needs to start the process by rejecting applications such as this one that turns homes into motels.

I have spoken with the council officer allocated to this application. The application is only 'discretionary' because the apartment is on a strata title. For the application to have to go before Council there needs to be objections. I respectfully object to the granting of this application.

I echo the previous comments about housing concerns:

How can we continue to do this when we are seeing homeless people everywhere as a consequence of the council not regulating this sector
Housing should to be need over greed.

Another rental being converted to short stay accommodation when there is a dire shortage of housing for couples families and professionals.
We cannot attract medical professionals to Launceston because of the dire shortage of a housing which impacts on everyone .
How can we continue to do this when we are seeing homeless people everywhere as a consequence of the council not regulating this sector
Housing should to be need over greed.

Has the intended signage been approved by a qualified lighting engineer to meet all the Australian Standards? AS1158 AS4282 as an example!

I hope that this development respects the local heritage architecture and that the ground floor is part of the public domain. Do we have renderings or plans that we can see?

I hope that this development respects the local heritage architecture and that the ground floor is part of the public domain. Do we have renderings or plans that we can see?

Please describe this signage, and where it will be placed.

Pretty sure those tanks are already sitting above ground? Looked that way today? I support repurposing this site, but couldn't they manage to get the approval before they dug up the site?

Perhaps another 'retrospective application'?

It is unfortunate that such a gaudy black and gold colour scheme and extra signage is being sought by this operator!
I was the architect who transformed this ‘ugly duckling’ at the St George Hotel, covered in green toilet tiles, to the much smarter presentation of today. The signage was limited intentionally to the illuminated window stall boards.
In any event, I caution the affixing of large cantilever signs bolted in the lightweight foamed concrete facade cladding (Hebel slabs just glued over the old tiles).
A serious structural risk could arise, and danger to the public should the proposed bolts pull out !!!!
Lionel Morrell, architect.

It is unfortunate that such a gaudy black and gold colour scheme and extra signage is being sought by this operator!
I was the architect who transformed this ‘ugly duckling’ at the St George Hotel, covered in green toilet tiles, to the much smarter presentation of today. The signage was limited intentionally to the illuminated window stall boards.
In any event, I caution the affixing of large cantilever signs bolted in the lightweight foamed concrete facade cladding (Hebel slabs just glued over the old tiles).
A serious structural risk could arise, and danger to the public should the proposed bolts pull out !!!!
Lionel Morrell, architect.