Recent comments

  1. In Nerang QLD on “Description: Class: TREE...” at 13 Koola Drive Nerang 4211:

    Gary Green commented

    It would be very sad to see the magnificent gums trees removed. The application is for the removal of three trees but the plan shows four trees.

  2. In Brunswick VIC on “The development of the land...” at 145-147 Union Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    steve hyde commented

    I strongly object to the reduction of the standard car parking requirement for this planning application, a minimum of two car spaces per dwelling on site to be designed into the construction. If this is not agreed to it will just increase the existing Street scape conjestion & even worsen the public safety together increasing local council liability

  3. In Burnley VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 69 Type St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Colin P commented

    Hi, ignore previous comment, I can now see it is the 68-89 site. Will the development retain the old building red brick facade, (I think it should)? Will overall height be less than 9m / 3 storeys? There should be at least one carpark per dwelling plus a couple of visitors spots. Can you please email me rendered drawing and elevations. Thanks

  4. In Burnley VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 69 Type St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Colin P commented

    Are you sure this is 69 Type st and not 89? 69 is a little cottage - how can 10 dwellings fit?

  5. In Bundall QLD on “Description: Class: MULTI...” at 6 Waterford Court Bundall 4217:

    peter darbyshire commented

    can you please advise what this one is about , i am unable to see what application is for?

    if its about traffic , we are already having major conjestion problems with this development with them parking on grass verges and blocking road at times.

    is it about sewerage line that they purposly concreted so that they could build over area and move sewerage out onto foot path area ?? dont they have to stick to the rules like everyone else with a 3 meter access - does this mean we could have our sewerage lines moved so we can build in the access areas within our complex.

    seems to be one set of rules for them and another for others.

  6. In Marsden QLD on “Commercial - 10 Townhouses...” at 54-56 Second Avenue Marsden QLD 4132:

    R J Gillman commented

    Enough of these townhouse developments between Second and Fifth Avenue. There are far to many of these townhouse developments popping up in a close proximity to one another in Marsden. This is negatively impacting the socioeconomics of the immediate area. Many residents have recently made significant investments buying new homes in housing estates in the Marsden area with the view that the area and it's value is improving. Local government has a duty to meet the expectations of residents and keep the area balanced and sustainable in all aspects. To help keep a balance this development application should be rejected and the area should be zoned for freestanding dwellings in a non gated, non strata community.

  7. In Rydalmere NSW on “Demolition and construction...” at 28 Burbang Crescent Rydalmere NSW 2116:

    Grant Peaty commented

    This application should not be approved.

    This development proposal is excessive and completely out of keeping with the surrounding neighbourhood, especially given that the broader local area has been undergoing a cyclical regeneration over the last few years, and residents have invested significant money into that process. This proposal takes no consideration of the impact, and significant devaluation, to the surrounding properties, and residents who have invested their lives into the area.
    > Rydalmere Public School - Increased traffic is a very real threat to the young school students
    > Neighbouring properties - The significant devaluation of the properties of those long term constituents of the area in favour of developers wishing to make a quick profit. There is no reason that a less aggressive proposal such as town houses could not be put forth, which would not infringe so heavily on the neighbouring properties.

    Given the residential and community nature of this area, town houses should be considered as the benchmark for acceptable property density in the Dundas/Rydalmere area.

    I implore the council to reject this application once again, and allow the local area to continue to flourish through self-rejuvenation and local resident investment.

  8. In Rydalmere NSW on “Demolition and construction...” at 2 Burbang Crescent Rydalmere NSW 2116:

    Grant Peaty commented

    This application should not be approved.

    This development proposal is excessive and completely out of keeping with the surrounding neighbourhood, especially given that the broader local area has been undergoing a cyclical regeneration over the last few years, and residents have invested significant money into that process. This proposal takes no consideration of the impact, and significant devaluation, to the surrounding properties, and residents who have invested their lives into the area.
    > Rydalmere Public School - Increased traffic is a very real threat to the young school students
    > Neighbouring properties - The significant devaluation of the properties of those long term constituents of the area in favour of developers wishing to make a quick profit. There is no reason that a less aggressive proposal such as town houses could not be put forth, which would not infringe so heavily on the neighbouring properties.

    Given the residential and community nature of this area, town houses should be considered as the benchmark for acceptable property density in the Dundas/Rydalmere area.

    I implore the council to reject this application once again, and allow the local area to continue to flourish through self-rejuvenation and local resident investment.

  9. In Glenwood NSW on “Demolition of dwellings and...” at 92 Meurants Lane Glenwood 2768, NSW:

    J. Bevitt commented

    These homes are central to Glenwood and provide a real sense of openness and wellbeing in the area. Replacement of these homes with modern homes on standard blocks will alter the open nature of Meurants Lane, the main thoroughfare through the suburb. Their demolition will be a tragic loss of iconic homes and pre-"Glenwood" suburban history.

  10. In Moonee Beach NSW on “8 Lot Subdivision” at 0 Unnamed Road Moonee Beach NSW 2450:

    Thea Eves commented

    To the Proper Officer, Coffs Harbour Council

    Dear Sir/Madam

    Would you kindly let me know the nearest named road, or preferably the nearest named intersection to this proposed subdivision.

    Thank you.

    Thea Eves
    ellodac38@bigpond.com
    14 Tidal Crescent
    Moonee Beach 2450

  11. In Newtown NSW on “Arts Attack Music Festival...” at Bound by Australia St Lennox St Church St And Federation Road, Newtown 2042:

    joe ortenzi commented

    Can someone explain to me why this is not subject to a DA?

  12. In Shailer Park QLD on “Reconfiguring a Lot (1 into...” at 23-25 Yarabah Crescent Shailer Park QLD 4128:

    Jamie Cameron commented

    OBJECTION TO RECONGIFURING A LOT (1 INTO 3 LOTS)

    One must assume that reconfiguring is subdividing with entrance to either Yarabah Cresent or Koomba Street.

    23-25 Yarabah Crescent backs onto Koomba Street, in which there would be only 2 options to build properties - subdividing horizontal or vertical to the road.

    If subdividing horizontal to the road, the frontage would be exceptionally small which would visually impact the look that Koomba Street has (currently average to higher than average frontage with decent block sizes) and would essentially be an eyesore to the rest of the properties in the vicinity. If a horizontal subdivision is done and properties are planning to be built, it would also require set back relaxation which would require permission from property owners on either side - 15 & 19 Koomba Street as well as being incoherent with either neighbours boundaries and setbacks.

    If subdividing vertical to the road, once again, the frontage would be reduced, to allow an easement to the constructed road - here, set back relaxation would not only be a visual impact but the property sizes would be that small, it would be inconsistant with the larger land/properties/homes on the street.

    Koomba Street only has two properties which are easements -
    * Property 1 is 10-12 Koomba Street, runs behind 14 Koomba Street and is a 2027m2 block
    * Property 2 is 20 Koomba Street, runs behind 18 & 22 Koomba Street and is a 793m2 block
    Either one of the blocks is not an eyesore or issue as the blocks are larger than average and do not look out of character to the rest of the street and do not impact the privacy of the neighbouring blocks.

    The underground drains running along this property would also affect the future position of homes that one must assume would be built here.

    Koomba Street is a quiet no through road and if this subdivision runs of Koomba Street, traffic will increase as well as on-street parking.

    I would like to know the impact this subdivision would have on house valuations of the neighbouring blocks - I would also like to have a copy of the proposed subdivision and any extra information regarding the building applications of 23-25 Yarabah Crescent.

  13. In Shailer Park QLD on “Reconfiguring a Lot (1 into...” at 23-25 Yarabah Crescent Shailer Park QLD 4128:

    Jamie Cameron commented

    OBJECTION TO RECONGIFURING A LOT (1 INTO 3 LOTS)

    One must assume that reconfiguring is subdividing with entrance to either Yarabah Cresent or Koomba Street.

    23-25 Yarabah Crescent backs onto Koomba Street, in which there would be only 2 options to build properties - subdividing horizontal or vertical to the road.

    If subdividing horizontal to the road, the frontage would be exceptionally small which would visually impact the look that Koomba Street has (currently average to higher than average frontage with decent block sizes) and would essentially be an eyesore to the rest of the properties in the vicinity. If a horizontal subdivision is done and properties are planning to be built, it would also require set back relaxation which would require permission from property owners on either side - 15 & 19 Koomba Street as well as being incoherent with either neighbours boundaries and setbacks.

    If subdividing vertical to the road, once again, the frontage would be reduced, to allow an easement to the constructed road - here, set back relaxation would not only be a visual impact but the property sizes would be that small, it would be inconsistant with the larger land/properties/homes on the street.

    Koomba Street only has two properties which are easements -
    * Property 1 is 10-12 Koomba Street, runs behind 14 Koomba Street and is a 2027m2 block
    * Property 2 is 20 Koomba Street, runs behind 18 & 22 Koomba Street and is a 793m2 block
    Either one of the blocks is not an eyesore or issue as the blocks are larger than average and do not look out of character to the rest of the street and do not impact the privacy of the neighbouring blocks.

    The underground drains running along this property would also affect the future position of homes that one must assume would be built here.

    Koomba Street is a quiet no through road and if this subdivision runs of Koomba Street, traffic will increase as well as on-street parking.

    I would like to know the impact this subdivision would have on house valuations of the neighbouring blocks - I would also like to have a copy of the proposed subdivision and any extra information regarding the building applications of 23-25 Yarabah Crescent.

  14. In Eagleby QLD on “Commercial - Community &...” at 262-268 Fryar Road Eagleby QLD 4207:

    Phillip Cleveland commented

    The development of this complex will result in significant increase to the growth of this area and currently the Eagleby Heights area cannot sustain infrastructure for the current amount of people utilising this area. Council should consider the opening of Fryar Road to the North possibly through a road across the Logan River that will allow for traffic to ease through the southern Fryar Road and Beenleigh areas. In addition, consideration should be taken into account for the lack of public transport in this area as the closest bus stop is quite a considerable uphill walk to reach the worship centre. The opening of Fryar Road and the transport upgrade will also assist those currently residing in the area to the North of Hearses Road.

    I feel without these amendments to the area, the addition of additional facilities and persons will cause chaos to the already poor infrastructured area.

  15. In Charlestown NSW on “1 into 37 Lot Subdivision &...” at 30 Green Valley Road, Charlestown NSW 2290:

    Susan Portier commented

    I have already added my objections to the proposed developement but as nobody has mentioned or perhaps doesn't even know of the graves on this site could the Council please advise me as to what is going to happen with the Wardell Family graves? that are also mentioned very briefly in the report.
    Mr Wardell made us aware of them many years ago when we first moved to the area and he proudly took my sons for a tour of his property and showed the graves to them.
    I would just like an answer on this please.

  16. In Charlestown NSW on “1 into 37 Lot Subdivision &...” at 30 Green Valley Road, Charlestown NSW 2290:

    Susan Portier commented

    I have already added my objections to the proposed developement but as nobody has mentioned or perhaps doesn't know of the graves on this site could the council please advise me as to what is going to happen with the Wardell Family graves? that are mentioned very briefly in the report.
    Mr Wardell made us aware of them many years ago when we first moved to the area and he proudly took my sons for a tour of his property and showed the graves to them.
    I would just like an answer on this please.

  17. In Clifton Hill VIC on “Buildings & works and...” at 95 Walker St Clifton Hill VIC 3068:

    Lou Baxter commented

    No reduction of the parking requirements should be allowed as the inner city already has dire parking problems, in part due to the council constantly allowing such reductions over the last few decades.
    Where I live, parking is so appalling that some friends do not visit and insist I visit them because they can't park nearby. Yet, previously, parking reductions in developments have been allowed.

  18. In Springwood QLD on “Domestic - Tenancy Fitout...” at 15 Watland Street Springwood QLD 4127:

    Kay Kramer commented

    It should not be approved.

    There is not enough parking on the premises. The street then fills up with parent's vehicle making it dangerous for children crossing the street as you can not see them in between the vehicles.

    It creates a dangerous situation for everyone concerned.

    Also put extra stress on other local businesses as parent's park in other businesses car parks close to the location and the children loiter around other local businesses while waiting to be picked up by late parents.

  19. In Kew VIC on “Construct two (2) dwellings...” at 5 Daracombe Avenue Kew VIC 3101:

    commented
    Hidden by site administrators
  20. In Balwyn VIC on “Construct seven (7)...” at 918 Burke Road Deepdene VIC 3103:

    commented
    Hidden by site administrators
  21. In Richmond VIC on “Part demolition of the...” at 11 Goodwood St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Owen Birrell commented

    Parking is at a premium already in this area. I object to the reduction is car parking request as it offloads the burden of parking to the street and hence to the neighboring residents, for whom the planning requirement is supposed to protect. If you are going to squeeze 10 units into a block to maximise the profit, is it not unreasonable that you bear the associated cost of parking.

  22. In Tallebudgera Valley QLD on “Description: Class: IMPACT...” at Tallebudgera Creek Road Tallebudgera Valley 4228:

    Sean Fitzjohn commented

    I oppose this project due to the environmental impact on the residential areas. It will also have vast negative outcomes owing to the noise pollutant effects on the residence of Reedy Creek and surrounding suburbs.

  23. In Brunswick West VIC on “Construction of a three...” at 185 Union Street, Brunswick West VIC 3055:

    steve hyde commented

    I strongly object to the reduction of the standard car parking requirement for this planning application, a minimum of two car spaces per dwelling on site to be designed into the construction. If this is not agreed to it will just increase the existing Street scape conjestion & even worsen the public safety together increasing local council liability.

  24. In Newtown NSW on “To hold Sydney Fringe...” at Eliza Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    joe ortenzi commented

    Since this is a free and ticketless market, and that it will not be noisy, I see no reason why It can't progress. It sounds like a great idea and it looks like the organisers have submitted a well thought out and detailed application.

    One thing though, I would have expected them to notify local residents (I live approx 20 m away from Eliza St) for support and if they had done, with all this information included, I would have been enthusiastic.

  25. In Charlestown NSW on “1 into 37 Lot Subdivision &...” at 30 Green Valley Road, Charlestown NSW 2290:

    Ali Morrison commented

    I would like to have my concerns noted in regard to DA/830/2014 30 Green Valley Road, Charlestown NSW 2290. As a local resident of Tirriki Street for over 10 years I am requesting this DA be subject to a more lengthy and thorough investigation.
    Issues I would like to note are:
    *The excessive number of dwellings proposed for the site. Nearly two thirds of the site is original natural bushland as described in the environmental report, '' The development is likely to incrementally contribute to the Key Threatening process Clearing of Native Vegetation”, this is not a suitable outcome.
    *The increase in the number of vehicles along Kalinda, Hallam, Tirriki, Green Valley Rd and Mimosa Streets. The narrow width of Mimosa Street will create traffic flow problems.
    *The lack of planning for parkland, cycleway/walkway, green space by the developer.
    *The part destruction of Dicks Creek which may have impact immediate and downstream to the ecology of this waterway. As quoted in environ report. '' Incoming residents should be appropriately educated on the value of the retained riparian area and adjacent Public Reserves, and should be made aware of the negative impacts of green waste dumping, uncontrolled run-off, incremental incursion etc. '' - How exactly would incoming residents be appropriately educated re the values of Dicks Creek?
    *The powerful Owl, Tawny Frogmouth, Kookaburras, Rosellas, Rainbow Lorikeets, Magpies, Butcherbirds, Satin Bowerbird, the Eastern Bandicoot, Red-bellied Black Snakes, Green Tree Snakes, Eastern Water Dragons, Blue Tongue Lizard, the Ring Tail and Brush Tail Possums, all these local residents that I have seen and others that I have not - I am asking on their behalf - please do not destroy our home.
    *Why do we all live in this beautiful area? - it is for the very reasons that this DA would destroy. The natural bushland and creeks, the native animals and birds, many homes backing onto bushland or Dicks Creek.
    I urge Lake Macquarie City Council to reject this DA in its present form and request less dwellings and keep more of the natural bushland and creek intact.

  26. In Charlestown NSW on “1 into 37 Lot Subdivision &...” at 30 Green Valley Road, Charlestown NSW 2290:

    Keith and Linda Watson commented

    RE: DA/830/2014

    Like other residents in the vicinity of this proposed development we would like to request an extension of the public notification period which is only seven calendar days from when we received the notice in our mail box. This hardly sufficient time to study in depth the numerous documents and their implications associated with this proposed development.

    We have lived at 32 Kalinda Parade for only seven years but in that time have witnessed the diversity of wild life seen from the rear of our property. Whilst we had not ruled out that limited development might occur on this site at some stage we would not have imagined that high density as submitted would ever be allowed by LMCC Planning Authority. The high density of the development would inevitably mean the removal of most of the trees in the proposed sub-division with the consequent loss to a considerable variety of flora and fauna. The Ecology Report accompanying this DA concedes that the observation times for the study of flora and fauna were limited and from our own observations do not accurately reflect the diversity of this area.

    As property owners we are naturally concerned about the unpredictable effects of storm water in this area that may be caused by the removal of a substantial quantity of trees.

    The volume of traffic using Kalinda Parade is considerable at present especially at peak times. Many cars use this route as a Dudley Road by-pass, often at speeds exceeding local limits. Kalinda Parade would be an obvious route for residents of this proposed sub-division to access Whitebridge Shopping Area/local schools etc and therefore traffic volumes would increase considerably.

    The area of this proposed sub-division is unique and Charlestown has very few comparable sites. The Council's policy on tree preservation would lead us to believe that had an individual application been made to remove a large quantity of mature trees on a property, this would undoubtedly have been met with a refusal. The high density of the development and the inevitable removal of many trees appears contrary to Council Policy.

    Please give detailed consideration to the unique nature of this site. In the Ecology Report it is disappointing that many issues relating to this proposal are dismissed in what would seem a flippant way. It is hoped that LMCC would require a more thorough investigation, to be considered in conjunction with issues raised by ourselves and other residents in the area.

  27. In Charlestown NSW on “1 into 37 Lot Subdivision &...” at 30 Green Valley Road, Charlestown NSW 2290:

    Colin & Judith Haworth commented

    We strongly support every comment that has been made regarding the development at 30 Green valley rd., Charlestown how can this development even be considered. We live on the corner of Tirriki St & Green Valley rd. & a few years ago an application for town houses to be built behind our property in Green Valley. Rd., was rejected by the council because of the volume of traffic it would create, it is a very narrow road & as the road is still the same we cannot see how the council could approve this development

  28. In Charlestown NSW on “1 into 37 Lot Subdivision &...” at 30 Green Valley Road, Charlestown NSW 2290:

    Mark Harris commented

    I object to this proposal as I believe that it is not suited to the local ecosystem of the area . The high density nature of this plan is not inline with existing infrasructure and will create significant traffic hazards in the area on local roads not suited to this volume of traffic.Many children including my own use these roads to walk to schools in the area and I believe that this development will jeopardise the safety of these children as their are no pedestrian crossings on Tirriki st
    I also believe that this development will dramatically alter the natural watercourses and have detrimental impact on surrounding properties .
    I urge council to reject this proposal in its current format and ask the developer to resubmit a proposal that reduces the impact on the natural environment of this site.

  29. In Charlestown NSW on “1 into 37 Lot Subdivision &...” at 30 Green Valley Road, Charlestown NSW 2290:

    Peter and Noreen Elliott commented

    We object to the proposed development for the following reasons:

    1. The planned subdivision is an over-development of a relatively small parcel of land. Construction of up to 36 residences cannot be achieved in a manner which is 'sympathetic to the existing scenic, natural and built environment of the locality.'

    2. Not enough consideration is given to the protection of flora and fauna in the area. It is obvious that large-scale clearing of trees and bushland will have a detrimental effect on local native fauna.

    3. No public open space is proposed in the plan. The Dicks Creek area cannot be classified as 'open public space' because it is not accessible to the public.

    4. There is no provision of pedestrian networks and places in the new subdivision. We do not accept the assertion (2.6.4) that because there is no existing infrastructure (e.g. footpaths, cycle ways) in the locality, then none will be needed in the future!

    5. It is highly unlikely that the development will proceed 'in a manner which will ensure the safe and efficient movement of vehicles in and around the site.' We maintain that the accompanying Traffic Impact Assessment (May 2014) is totally unrealistic and therefore misleading. Access via Green Valley Road and Mimosa Avenue is manifestly unsuitable. Both are narrow streets, and when cars are parked on both sides of Green Valley Road or Mimosa Avenue it is very difficult for a third vehicle to gain safe thoroughfare. Furthermore, there is a blind crest at the south-western end of Green Valley Road, close to the intersection with Tirriki Street. When vehicles approach this blind crest, from either direction, there is a very real danger of a head-on collision - a situation made worse when a vehicle is parked on or near the crest. It will become considerably more dangerous with the added volume of traffic gaining access to a large new subdivision. A more suitable access point would be via 62 Tirriki Street, which has been used as a thoroughfare to the property at 30 Green Valley Road for many years.

    In conclusion, we urge Lake Macquarie City Council to reject the planned proposal in its current form. We request a drastic reduction in the number of approved building sites, as well as the provision of a safer road access to the new subdivision. We urge LMCC to demand that the developer provides suitable infrastructure (e.g. footpaths and cycle ways) as well as buffer areas of open green spaces that will minimise the impact on this sensitive local environment while, at the same time, providing an attractive facility for public recreation.

    Peter and Noreen Elliott

  30. In Charlestown NSW on “1 into 37 Lot Subdivision &...” at 30 Green Valley Road, Charlestown NSW 2290:

    Brant Barden commented

    Mr David W Pavitt
    I am writing to you by way of this formal submission regarding DP/830/2014 30 Green Valley Road, Charlestown NSW 2290.
    I have concerns regarding the size, nature and impact of the proposed development on this site.
    I would also like to apply for an extension of time as the proposed subdivision will have a major impact on the area, and as such residents require more time to analyse the proposal.
    Outlines of my major concerns are listed below.

    1. Zoning and Residential density
    a) The current proposal is incongruous with the LMCC 2030 plan for R2 (low density residential) “maintaining and enhancing the character of the surrounding area.”
    b) It is not fitting with the block size of existing suburb dwellings and is below median land size within the neighbourhood.
    c) It will alter the elements that residents find attractive about the local area.
    d) The existing environment appears not to be offered protections that should be required given the recent developments of Whitebridge Shops, Coppa Street and the proposed high-density residential apartments adjoining the Fernleigh track.
    e) Many existing residents have outlaid significant monies in accordance with fire protection regulations. A development of this nature may affect property value.

    2. Forrest and Green corridor
    a) Councils current maps linked to the 2030 plan indicate that the forest and the canopy represent significant wildlife corridors and link to other green spaces. It would appear that retention of trees would be difficult under the current development proposal. The DA report also incorrectly identifies some tree species.

    3. Species of concern
    a) The powerful owl has a large feeding range. Birds have been often sighted, photographed and scats and pellets containing ringtail possums have been encountered within and around the proposed development site.
    b) The Littlejohns tree frog (male) has been heard, sighted and photographed within the proposed development site.
    c) The Eastern Bandicoot has been sighted and photographed within the bushland and in adjoining properties.

    4. Other notable Species
    a) A large colony of Kookaburras exist within the site. These are territorial birds that rarely relocate successfully.
    b) Two separate families of Saturn Bowerbirds are located within the site.
    c) Numerous Catbirds, white-headed pigeons and a King parrot population exist within the site.
    d) Microbats nest within the trees and feed at night within the site.
    e) Red-bellied Black Snakes are present and reduce the number of Eastern Brown snakes. Green tree Snakes are also present.
    f) Population of Eastern Water dragons inhabit the creek and the watercourses that feed into the creek.
    g) Very large populations of possum species (Brush & ring tailed) which form part of the diet for large nocturnal birds.

    5. Geological and Hydrological Concerns
    a) A coal seam beaks the surface of the land within the site. Being porous and coupled with the tree root penetration this represents a significant recharge point for waters into surrounding aquifers.
    b) The catchment, subsurface aquifers and Dicks creek form part of a sensitive section of the headwaters for Jewels swamp.
    c) One proposed road appears to cover an existing natural watercourse that feeds into Dick’s creek.
    d) The forest density currently mitigates runoff and wind speed.
    e) Runoff and sediment may contaminate Dick’s creek during and after the proposed development.

    I request also that information regarding any Green offset points levied by the developer be provided to the residents affected.
    I would welcome the opportunity to meet with all stakeholders to elaborate further and work towards obtaining a mutually agreeable outcome.
    Yours truly,

    Mr Brant Ian Barden B.Sc. B.Ed. (University of Sydney).
    36 Kalinda Prd Charlestown

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