Last month, the Clarence City Council approved the application from Concept Development Services Pty Ltd for a drive-through BWS bottle shop to be located at the Foreshore shopping precinct on South Arm Rd, Lauderdale. Currently tenants of that site include TCM Market, a post office, pharmacy, gym and real estate office.
The bottle shop proposal would be in a building which has been vacant for a number of years and was previously a service station.An appeal against the approval lodged with the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal on Christmas Eve.The appellant is NSW-based PGH Tas Property Pty Ltd, which owns the neighbouring Foreshore Tavern, which is already home to a Big Bargain bottle shop.
The appeal documents show the appellant will argue the application does not comply with the planning scheme for several reasons including: “The proposed use and hours of operation has an intensity which is incompatible with the existing and intended residential character and amenity of the area; the proposal will change the mix of uses to a dominant hotel industry character of use for the purpose of selling alcohol and the proposed hours of use have the potential to impact the amenity of nearby residents and is not supported by a noise impact assessment.”Another argument was that the proposed signage “does not respond to the coastal location.”A preliminary hearing will be held at the planning tribunal on Tuesday, January 19.Meanwhile, the Hobart City Council’s approval of a multi-unit development for a bushland enclave in South Hobart last month in also being challenged.The development would consist of nine new three-bedroom units at 32 Romilly St, as well as a boundary adjustment with 30 Romilly St.Residents raised concerns about the development including the impact on traffic, the character of the area and part of the path travelled by Charles Darwin in the 1830s.
Council received 38 representations opposing the plan by Atleist Development Pty Ltd.Waterworks Rd property owners Millard Renton Ziegler and Felicity Spaulding have now lodged an appeal against the approval.The grounds include that application did not provide the location of existing adjoining properties and as such they argue the council could not assess whether the new units would cause loss of amenity or where privacy may be an issue.“The council was remiss in not requiring this information and was deficient in its duty to assess all aspects of the application,” the appellants wrote.“Therefore, the planning permit should not have been granted.”A preliminary hearing will be held on Friday.
[email protected]
Source link
