All recent comments on applications from Townsville City Council, QLD

I am concern regarding the hours of the bar as we live across the river of the Flinders street Nightclubs/bars that created noise beyond what is reasonable and probably allowed which I believe is not policed the noise goes on until 4.00am Tuesday, Friday & Saturday, once the Nightclubs close the patrons come out into the street to continue to socialise.
Please do not allow a late licence for this bar as it will only add to our problem of lack of sleep when opened.

I agree with the above comments. No need for large signage in a residential area.

As a resident of the "quiet part" of Hugh Street, I objected to this childcare centre before it was built. It was not mooted at all when the original historic convent building was pulled down pre-apartment development, which I also objected to. There was to be a stage I and stage II apartment development. Only stage I has materialised. This centre will not only reduce my amenity by increasing traffic in Hugh Street but now seems set to assault me visually by an over-abundance of signage. I agree with the previous two comments. Indeed, Townsville already has too many ugly signs, and anyone can find anything they need with the help of Google. It has perfectly legible sign and if it doesn't already have a perfectly legible street number, I would suggest they explore that avenue.

I disagree with the need for any more signage in this area & for the daycare centre, it already has its name clearly printed on the building in large lettering… that can be seen from the road.
Please refuse their request & try to avoid extra signage consider, the children, tenants & owners that live in the units in the same complex and for drivers it’s dangerous as drivers need to be concentrating on road signs especially the approaching traffic lights it will be a big distraction with unnecessary large lighted flashing business signs.
Anyone seeking a child care will find it from a simple google search or advertisement on local radio is better than this type of signage. Its great that new businesses are coming into the area but we want to keep as much natural space as possible’ don’t need these signs.

Bundock St has enough ugly signs. A daycate centre is a target market, therefore does not need to tell every single person travelling on the road they are there. We residents, know they are there, signs need to be sympathetic to our suburb, not flashing lights anf loud colours.

Dear Council, I wish to know what are the plans for 40 Fulham road, Pimlico ?
When are the planned works likley to begin ?

I agree totally with the above comments.

My property is downstream of the proposed “development”. I have therefore witnessed, and been exposed to, these problems over the 13 years since first being made aware of the project in July 2008. The original proposal involved the building of 12 townhouses in what is referred to as a “flood plain” with its natural watercourse. The houses were also totally out of character with surrounding properties.

The site receives runoff (and debris) from some 12.5 hectares of the slopes of Castle Hill (from Engineers’ drawing dated 18/03/2008). This alone should preclude any residential development.

The maintenance of the site has always been very much lacking, resulting in numerous reports to the Council.

If the proposal to split the block is for residential purposes, I totally disagree for two reasons.

First, for regard for the eventual owners who would almost certainly experience flooding across their properties. Then there is the problem that all sewerage from the residences is planned to be pumped uphill to Potts Street. In the event of an electrical outage with rain, the pumps could not work. Overflow of this sewerage would then impinge on the gully as it passes through my property and others downstream.

The owner of this property has tried for many years to sell this allotment. Now he appears to be subdividing it into 2 parcels to sell. Firstly a natural water course runs through here with rain collected from Castle Hill. It gets quite full and, according to a very long term resident has completely filled the lower level of the land in years past.
The owner is very slack with property maintenance with complaints send regularly to local councilor to have area slashed. THIS PRESENTS A HUGE FIRE THREAT IN DRY PERIODS. The abundance of problematic weeds impacts neighbouring properties. The "road ends" sign has been removed from the Robinson Street end.
Now the owner has been sending a dump truck to the site every half hour for the last few days to dump land fill. Yesterday the delivery started at 6.45am. The truck driver zooms down our narrow street leaving a cloud of dust on his arrival and departure. The fill is contaminated with concrete pieces etc.
This gully should near be developed for residential purposes.

Good Afternoon,

I live next door to this block, there has been an earth mover come in already start work on the block today that has caused some disruptions. I was asked to move my car this morning so it could make way for a truck that has the earth mover on it. The driver of this truck has parked in the street making it difficult for my car to turn around and the same for anyone else coming down the street to turn around. The driver has also parked the truck on my neighbour's lawn which has basically ripped up the dirt. the truck is parked in a very unsafe location to the school children that are about to walk home from school soon. Also with this, there are no dangerous hazard signs up that are warning children about the excavating that is currently occurring. This is a major concern as children are playing in this location every afternoon after school. Now with all the excavations that are going on there has been and still currently so much unsettled dust and dirt flying around. I have closed most the windows that are facing the side to this property but I am still able to smell and it is that bad that I can taste. The digger has made no announcement or notification that this loud and disrupting work was going to take place and the fact of all this dust and dirt he would have flying around not only to my property but also connecting properties around. I have had to water down the side of the house as well as the plants and trees that are covered in dirt and also my car. I do have videos from of the dust and dirt that the digger has caused to fly up and around. In addition, the digger has come quite close to the face line that I have seen as well as the ruble he is shifting, this wouldn't be a concern but due to the fact the fences old condition, it could break it. In my opinion, this development should not go ahead as it is going to cause a lot of hassles and disruption for the duration of the construction but all for the new residents that will come and disrupt a peaceful and quiet street community.

Kind Regards,

Jarrad Terry

If this submission is related to approval for any car park/entrance way for a walkway off Strathbourne Street, the residents of Mount Louisa have opposed any impact to the current occupants of the street from access which may be granted to persons for the purpose of access to Mount Louisa from this street for walking/hiking or provisions for a carpark.
If this application is for drawings for a house build, then I have no objections

Could I please have a copy of this email to me. I can’t seem to access this document

The notification does not actually say what is planned at this location

Dear Cr Greaney and TCC planning authority

I am the neighbouring resident at 8 Arcadia Road, adjacent to this development.
I wish to record my objection to the proposed neon flashing signage proposed for the roof of the building.

I ask that you please refer to the original conditions of the DA approval.

In particular, I believe the following conditions imposed by TCC are now looking to be compromised, by this signage application.

1. Building materials (condition 2)
These are required to be of a low reflective level, that does not cause excessive glare. A neon sign of any size or description contradicts this condition.

2. Storage (condition 6)
Storage items on site are required to be screened so that they do not have a detrimental effect to the visual amenity of the surrounding land. The neon sign will have a detrimental effect to the visual amenity of the surrounding land.

3. Screening of Plant and utilities (condition 16)
All plant and utilities must be screened or located so as not to be visible from the street, to ensure they do not have a detrimental effect on the amenity of the surrounding land. Again, the neon sign will have a detrimental effect to the amenity of the surrounding land.

4. Signage (condition 19)
To maintain amenity for the adjoining properties , no illumination of the signage is to occur unless otherwise approved by Council.
The application for approval of an illuminated flashing neon sign should be dismissed outright, as it will not maintain the amenity of my adjoining property. My property directly overlooks this development and has large glazed areas, which until now, have allowed me to enjoy the amenity both during the day and night. My view and amenity has already been compromised during the day and would be even more impacted by any neon sign at night time.

5. Outdoor lighting (condition 25)
Lighting fixtures are to be maintained, so that they do not emit glare or light above the levels stated in Australian Standard 4282 – 1997 Control of the Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting (or the current applicable standard).
Any lighting fixed on the roof will emit glare and therefore cause a light nuisance to nearby sensitive receptors.

The development is located adjacent to the only roundabout on the island.
A condition of this development is a left in, left out only road access from Arcadia Road. This was imposed as a safety measure.
A flashing neon, rooftop sign will cause a distraction to drivers at an intersection that has already been acknowledged as requiring additional traffic safety measures, to reduce the likelihood of an accident.

I ask that TCC and CR Greaney review this application and decline the approval.

Regards

Michael Bulpitt
8 Arcadia Road, Nelly Bay.

Dear Sir/Madam, I refer to the application to erect an illuminated sign on the roof of shop1, 4 Arcadia road, Nelly Bay.
The proposal is to erect an illuminated and possibly flashing sign on the roof of a building adjacent to a major traffic intersection and at a height which clearly will have visual impact as shown with the artist impression within the application.
I wish to object to this application on the grounds that it fails to meet the acceptable outcome of the Townsville City Plan 9.3.1 Advertising devices code.
9.3.1.2 Purpose
(2) the purpose of the code will be achieved through the following:
(a) advertising devices are compatible with the character of the local area and do not diminish visual amenity: and
(b) advertising devices do not create a hazard to people or property, in particular pedestrians, cyclist and vehicular traffic.
The positioning of the proposed sign fails to achieve this purpose.

Specifically:
PO1 The type, location and design of the advertising devices do not diminish the character and amenity of the zone or precinct in which they are located.
PO7 Advertising devices do not adversely impact on the visual amenity and locality, having regard to the following:
(a) significant and unreasonable loss of views
(e) impact on sight lines for vehicular access and egress.
PO8 Advertising devices are subservient to, and not dominant over a building's appearance and are reasonably integrated with architectural features.
PO9 Advertising devices do not pose a safety hazard.

This sign clearly will impact the visual amenity, is not subservient to the building and is inappropriate for the locality.

Regards,
William Downey

Hi, this is within 20mtrs of the busiest intersection on island......a neon sign will distract drivers a lot, there are many near misses at this section of road everyday.....this is just dangerous. Also, have the council planning authority missed the fact that this is a tropical HOLIDAY island......holiday makers and we who live here do not need flashing advertising signs....anywhere..........NO FROM ME. Cheers, John Kuit

I think it will be a loss to Townsville if this heritage hotel is removed. It is in a location that could be considered a heritage presinct and has obvious heritage value. In time to come it will be lamented if demolished now. It can't be replaced only preserved. Please show some foresight on this one. The image of Townsville benefits from character buildings which only become more appreciated and precious over time.

Entry and exits are still marked in front of current homes on Buchanan street, this need to be readdressed and moved away

Access turning point onto Buchannan street need to be look at!, currently the access to Buchannan street off Bayswater drive becomes congested at peek hour dues to daycare centre, this makes it extremely hard for residence of Buchanan street to exit, as they have last right of way!
With current proposal for development along Buchannan street adding to traffic leaving, and the new petrol station on the Corner of Buchannan and Bayswater rd... this will also draw more traffic to the access/exit off Buchanan street!
I propose that a NO U-TURN sign be placed at the point of Bayswater road turning into Buchanan street. there are 2 round about located within 20-50 meter on both sides along Bayswater road that would accommodate the traffic needing to access this Business. and make it a safer area for all traffic!

I give my approval to this application on the proviso of:

Sealing and permanently opening Round Mountain Road from Kelso Drive to the corner of Round Mountain Road and Laudham Road;
Full and permanent screening on 3 sides, Kelso Drive, Round Mountain Road and Laudham Road to avoid the dropping of values in surrounding properties.

Thank you for your consideration of my request.

Anita Bast
Resident of 360 Round Mountain Road
Owner of 420 Round Mountain Road

As a local resident I would like to understand what has happened to the house at No 46. Half of this house was removed a few weeks ago, the other half still remains. Strangely, it appears that an application for its removal has only just been lodged with TCC. My concerns, not only for losing a character house, but for the way the property has been 'left'. There is no barricading on the property to keep people out of this now demolition site. Could you please check if the owners have secured the property.

I wish to notify of my concerns regarding traffic for the proposed Service Station & Fast Food Outlet. I note that the traffic impact study has used the study applicable to a residential allotment development at 2 Karanya Street. I believe that there are some outstanding issues that may also affect traffic flow for this application.

I am also alerting that we currently experience viewing obstruction when trying to exit Buchanan Street. The obstruction occurs infrequently and is caused by a business being conducted at 448 Bayswater Road. The business does not have any signage and appears to be aligned to the building industry. Building workers large four wheel drive vehicles regularly park in the front of the premises and illegally too close to the corner of Buchanan Street causing viewing obstruction to the east and requiring vehicle exiting Buchanan Street to nose out almost into the traffic lanes on Bayswater Rd. Other vehicles park around the corner on the eastern side of Buchanan Street forcing vehicles entering Buchanan Street onto the incorrect side of the road.

With the proposed application it is anticipated that there will be additional traffic wanting to access the proposed development. I asked that these areas around the premises at 448 Bayswater Rd be considered as a no parking zones to ensure the safety of motorist thus providing a clear and unobstructed view of oncoming traffic.
Thank You.

I thought Castle Hill was a nature reserve. Why would Council even consider this?? I would like to lodge my objection as a nearby resident and user of the hill for recreational purposes. We already have to look at the ugly structures on Yarrawonga why do we need one on the middle of Castle Hill an iconic tourist attraction.

2 KARANYA STREET, MT LOUISA DEVELOPMENT REFERENCE No. MI13/0042.01

Dear Sir,

It is requested that no work application be approved to the Karanya Street development until all plans are finalised with Department of Transport and Main Roads in regards to the bus stop relocation. This bus stop relocation is rather controversial considering the new location has been deemed unsafe by council previously. The current plans of this development show widening of the pavement to the western side of Banfield Drive near the bus stop. There is a power pole in the area of where widening is required. Is council going to remove a power pole for less than a metre of widening? Until these issues are finalised and Townsville City Council can demonstrate that there is no adverse impact on existing pedestrian, cyclists, or public transport routes, it is requested that no work be allowed to start.

Sandra Hobden

Please advise of the Traffic Management Plan that will be in place for the main arterial road - Banfield Drive and the intersection of Hedley Court and Banfield Drive.
Thank you

Children's dance school in between all mechanical businesses with mechanics test driving and moving cars around and tow trucks dropping cars off in the street. Not safe for parents trying to park and navigate their children inside safely. Surely there is a safer location for children as well as the fact that the men use language at times that is inappropriate for the children.