Recent comments

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

    Withdrawn commented

    Having lived in this area since a child my first memories of growing up in the area was being warned never to cut a tree down and this was by the owners of the homestead and surround property in current dispute. This area is a forest and studded with many large trees, many of which were planted by the same Wardell Family. It is disgraceful that Council may even consider allowing the demolition of this historic structure be demolished, this is an element of Charlestown's history and heritage and I am not surprised that the heritage Trust has not explored this travesty.

    I ask you to ask you how you would feel if your home was demolished? This is exactly what is going to happen to the thousands of various native animals occupying this area that have done so for many many years, should this proposal go ahead this wildlife will be destroyed.

    I ask if council will accept responsibility should a tree fall and damage a property or potentially harm an innocent person? should this development go ahead the destruction of so many trees will subsequently no longer support the surrounding trees hence danger arrives.

    One can only go onto imagine the social issues that will arise from cramming our population.

    Is council willing to subsidise for the loss in value to residents properties should this development go ahead?

    I strongly suggest that you listen to the people of this area and also consider the fact of the common knowledge and that being the word of the Wardell Family that "this land will never be developed". It is an absolute travesty to even contemplate destroying nature purely to financially benefit.

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

    Susan Portier commented

    I also would like to add my name to the objection of this 'developemnt' I have lived in Kalinda Pde since 1976 and have seen this area grow and flourish. Sadly this developement is if it is allowed to go ahead going to have a detremental affect on the surrounding area. and not just a small piece of pristine land that is going to be turned into an overcrowded sub-division.
    Apart from the effects this will have on the wild life and the erosion of tree removal due to the steepness of the land fall, what will happen to the water that Dickies creek? it has always taken the run-off from the properties in the surrounding streets. Many residents may not be aware that the subsoil is largely clay in layers, we have problems with the water run off from Dudley road as people that have done extentsions on their property have found out. The water seeps between these clay levels and gradually ends up in the creek. If the creek is 'removed' as indicated by the developers what happens then? Is this water build-up going to be left? how can you destroy a natural water course that is home to many animals, it has provided the area with a water drain-off solution for over 50 years to my knowledge. Now with this new developement with so many houses being crammed into such a small area it sounds like we are going to have many more problems than can be imagined. We are loosing so much land in Lake Macquarie to housing, please do not let developements like this happen. We need these small areas of pristine bushland to help stablilise the landscape. To give homes to the wild life and keep our suburb from turning into a lifeless 'concrete jungle'.

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

    Dan Hodgins commented

    My self and family wish to object the development of 30 Green Valley Road, Charlestown for the following reasons;
    • Minimal retention of large trees due to small lot sizes
    • Further Traffic Congestion
    • Lot size imbalance with existing dwellings
    • Amount of large trees appears to be understated
    • Significance of tributary feeding Dickies Creek
    • Significant loss of extensive fauna
    I do not feel I need to elaborate upon the dangers this potential development will initiate also the significant loss of heritage style homestead that is a part of Charlestown’s history.
    I also am aware of neighbouring properties whom are currently on vacation and request upon their behalves an extension of this matter.

  4. In North Melbourne VIC on “Change of use from private...” at 2 Gardiner Street North Melbourne VIC 3051:

    Graham Henderson commented

    My Property abuts 2 Gardiner Street, the property in question is extremely small, an 8 bed permit would leave no room for common areas, and any that are there would be quite cramped and not add to any standard of living.

    Also with the limited car parking in the area this would be an extra burden placed on the surrounding streets. Noise will be an issue in such a confined area, also the lane-way that is adjacent to the property will become a recreation area for the residents.

    This type of accommodation in such a small space is draconian, and will only detract from the area and not improve the quality of life for people who will be using it. Does council have a ratio of space to amount of people in a dwelling?

  5. In Glendale NSW on “Shops & Restaurants” at Pt 1 Dp 860494, 10 Stockland Drive, Glendale:

    Audrey Sawyer commented

    I am a tenant at stockland & my store & 3 others will be directly impacted by this development, but we have received no direct information to that effect. The only notice tenants received was a memo stating that plans for a food court development had been lodged with council. The memo did not include a DA. I believe a food court would be good for the area, but not at the cost of my tenancy. I would like to hear further public information into the development & what store will be included in the food court & be offered a place there. I may have missunderstood, but I thought submissions closed on the 14 June 14. 2 days (today the 16 June )after the closure the development application was announced on the radio. Maybe I am a bit suspicious of the effects it is going to have on my livelihood & that of my 10 staff

  6. In Epping NSW on “Residential - new multi...” at 80A Oxford Street Epping NSW 2121, NSW:

    Craig Watson commented

    As a component of the Epping Plan a new conservation area has been gazetted. This site sits within this area and opposite a 2 draft and 2 existing heritage items.
    The street has no 2 storey houses and approval of this house will set a very poor example of councils approach to heritage.
    The proposal is completely atypical of the interwar housing that is identified in the character studies as being the principle reason for having the conservation area in the first place.
    To add insult to injury the proponent is asking for a reduction in one side setback from the mandatory 1500mm to 1290mm.
    Thankfully this proposal can't be dealt with as a Complying Development but requires a DA.
    It is important that council reviews this in the light of the draft DCP and ensures that the streetscape character is maintained in both bulk and form.

  7. In Epping NSW on “Residential - new multi...” at 80A Oxford Street Epping NSW 2121, NSW:

    Martin Todd-Smith commented

    The single low rise house that was previously on this site now becomes 4 buildings including double storeyed houses as well as granny flats.

    With the extra granny flats this is an over-development of this site with no comeback possible from neighbours because of the complying development.

    My northerly aspect will now have a "granny flat" ( in reality a full blown house) placed close up against my back fence. My outlook and privacy are affected by this and the second storey of the double storeyed house

    I object strongly.This development should not be approved in it's present form.

    But from my previous discussions with the Council Staff and the private certifiers I apparently can have no input or affect the development outcome but meekly have to accept a decision.

    The development is overblown and will have an impact on my privacy and outlook and on top of that any system that does not take into account the effects on existing residents is flawed .

    On a broader scale it makes you wonder how much influence a bottle of Grange can have.

  8. In Collaroy Plateau NSW on “Collaroy Plateau IGA -...” at Shop 6 65 Veterans Pde, Collaroy Plateau 2097:

    Harley Jackson commented

    APPLICATION APP-0000787668

    I wish to lodge my objection to the abovementioned application on the following grounds.

    Collaroy Plateau is a small family oriented community village and is already well served by two bottle shops. In addition there is a bottle shop at the bottom on the hill in each of the 3 directions east (LiquorLand), south (Time and Tide) and west (Wheeler Heights) possibly already giving Collaroy Plateau one of the highest liquor-shop-to-household ratios in Sydney if not Australia.

    The proposed bottle shop would be located in the Augusta shops directly across the road from two primary schools (St Rose and Wheeler Heights). An existing bottle shop is already located in this shopping strip. Adding another one literally metres from the existing one in my opinion would serve to give the impression to young minds that liquor stores are more important than grocery stores, newsagents, pharmacies, video rental stores, bakeries, fish and chip shops, delicatessens and bookstores (one each of which is located within the Augusta shopping strip). It is my considered opinion as well as those of the community with whom I have discussed this issue, that an additional bottle shop is completely unwarranted and completely out of the character of the area.

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

    Cherie May Quinn commented

    We object to the development of 30 Green Valley Road, Charlestown for the following reasons:

    1/ Massive loss of large/old-growth trees due to small lot sizes. Due to the small lot sizes and retaining of said lots, most large trees will be cut down. This will not only severly impact on appearance, but cause stability and safety issues. Isolated large gum trees can easily become dangerous, especially on sloping grounds, in severe/high winds situations, endangering both residents and existing properties adjacent o the proposed subdivision.

    2/ Amount of large trees appear to be understated in the DA. In the flora counts, the tree numbers in the existing forest appear to be under reported and only one of the accompanying images shows a forested area. An independent tree count on proposed Lot 26 (464m2) shows 23 Spotted Gum, 3 Ironbark and 3 Cedar Wattle and various saplings. Several of the Spotted Gu are above 30 metres. These trees are vital to maintaining the eco system in an already abused urban environment.

    3/ Fauna not included in the report. The DA does not take into consideration the considerable damage to the permanent population of native wildlife occupying the green belt. Bandicoots, Green Tree Snakes, Eastern Brown Snakes, Red Bellied Black Snakes, Tawny Frogmouths, native Wrens, Powerful Owls, Kookaburras, Magpies, Easter Water Dragon, Satin Bowerbirds and Sugar Glider possums all live in this area. The destruction of these native animals' habitats would result in not only the decimation of their numbers in the Charlestown area, but an ongoing negative impact on their breeding numbers in the Lake Macquarie area.

    4/ Significance of tributary feeding Dickies Creek. The central roadway in the plan terminating in a cup-de-sac at the high end has been located on top of the main tributary running down the slope feeding Dickies Creek. Although this does not run continuously above ground it has a significant flow during rainfall. To disrupt this tributary would cause water disbersment dangers to surrounding properties, not only resulting in property damage but potential property valuation loss.

    5/ Lot size. Lot sizes in DA are high density and significantly smaller than exiting lots. There appears to be a lack of consideration for the existing residents' lifestyles for this low density zoned residential area. No attempt has been made to blend the new development into the environment.

    6/ Traffic congestion. An extra 36 residences will add to an already burdened traffic situation for the local road network. Kalinda Pde is already used as a by-pass for many people, exceeding the speed-limit and putting residence at risk. This situation will only increase with more traffic in the area.

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

    Brenden Dipper commented

    Hello my name is Brenden Dipper. I live at 20 Greenvalley Rd Charlestown. I have been here and raised my family here as of 2002. I am very concerned about the proposed development at 30 Greenvalley Road Charlestown. There is numerous reasons why I object to the proposal. My personal concern is that of the size of the development. My other concerns are the impact it's going to have on all the flora and fauna of this old growth forest and Nature corridor. There should be a environmental impact study done to this area rather than the council just allowing for the whole area to be demolished. It makes me very angry that this proposal could even be put into words and maps as it is set out like a car parking lot. Personally I don't think you could squeeze anything more on the Map. I think it's best that somebody over qualified from the council actually comes out to the area and has a look at the size of the existing dwellings and size of the roads in & around this Proposed development. I do know that development happens In this day & age but I think this is ridiculous trying to squeeze in the likes of 37 houses into a small spot. Not only are you going to demolish the whole forest, You're going to wipe out so many different protected species of Reptiles,marsupials,native Australian birds And thousands of different types of species of their food chain. The Past owner of this Whole area has kept this land pruned and Free of pests and unwanted Non-native weeds For dozens of years. My personal opinion is that if it is going to be a development that there only be 2 to 3 acreages be allowed only.If the council allows this current development to go ahead I strongly advise Lake Macqurie City Council that the whole local Community will object profusely.

  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

    As a resident of a street bordering on the park I would like to know why I was not notified of this plan for a music festival on this date. There are a number of issues with this application that concern me.

    1. For an expected audience of 1000 (how will they manage the gates if more show up with only 2 security personnel across the entire park?) they estimate 100L of beer and 100L of wine and 10L of spirits, which adds up to about 1 drink per attendee. If you have ever been to a music gig you would immediately see the problem with this.

    2. With shops and hotels so near, what steps are being taken to manage people bringing their own drink?

    3. They state the event is during the day, but also list the hours of operation 11AM to 10 PM, well into the night. How will they manage dispersal, in the dark, over several acres with two security personnel?

    4, With social media, if the event is any good, I would expect attendees to contact friends and connections to invite them. What measures have been put in place so that audience numbers are managed? Again, two people managing security will not control 20 people angry at the liquor running out and as a resident facing that park, I wouldn't want to have to defend my property against the organisers lack of crowd control.

    5. Where is the DA for this festival and have the police been notified?

  12. In North Melbourne VIC on “Change of use from private...” at 2 Gardiner Street North Melbourne VIC 3051:

    Oliver Mendelsohn commented

    My view, as a resident with a frontage on Warwick Street, is that it would be undesirable for Council to endorse this development. If as many as 8 independent residents are to be accommodated in a facility in North Melbourne, it should be comprehensively assessed for the suitability of the accommodation and its compatibility with the surrounding environment. It would be quite short-sighted to wave a development through merely because it might make no structural change to the external landscape of a given precinct. The precinct of Gardiner and Warwick Streets is increasingly being consolidated as a low-to medium rise colony of separate dwellings, with residents who know each other. It is quite undesirable to allow a significant variation to this model without a formal inquiry with adequate opportunity to explore all sides of the application.

  13. In Terrigal NSW on “Florida Beach Bar...” at Terrigal Esp, Terrigal 2260:

    Mrs K Minassian commented

    What is the special occasion? AND what time will the trading hours be extended to as I live only a few steps from these premises.

    The stats at the end of this email are incorrect if they refer to me personally as this is the first email that I've sent.

    Kind regards

    K. Minassian

  14. In North Melbourne VIC on “Change of use from private...” at 2 Gardiner Street North Melbourne VIC 3051:

    Stephen Farrugia commented

    The property is in a quiet location surrounded by narrow streets and laneways. It is important to the many residents surrounding this property that it remains a private dwelling. Noise in narrow streets has a tendency to carry some distance and be annoying. As the property footprint is quite small, it's easy to see that the laneway alongside will become a recreation area for the residents, so the probability that the change of use will impact the surrounding properties is inevitable.

    Also, as the property footprint is small, ~15mx8m, where will the individual rooms fit? Will the amenity of the people living there be acceptable with respect to council guidelines?

    I suggest that council clamp down on ventures such as this as it is poorly regulated and very open to abuse.

  15. In Collingwood VIC on “Change of use (Brothel)” at 100 Johnston St Collingwood VIC 3066:

    Jill Koppel commented

    Change of use to a Brothel? As far as I remember, it's always been one!
    (This is not an objection provided no women are held there without THEIR CONSENT!)

  16. In East Launceston TAS on “Utilities - Remove 9 trees...” at Road Reserve between Arthur & Adelaide Streets 18-32 High Street East Launceston TAS 7250:

    Stephen Stronach commented

    On perusal of DA no DA202/2014 I find it very difficult to justify the funds being spent on the removal and replacement of trees with exotic palms considering that the existing trees are in good condition, are native trees which attract native birds, and are not creating any danger to people or property.

    The funds would be better spent on beautification of Launceston by the removal of litter, weeds and general rubbish in any number of places in the city.

    Stephen Stronach

  17. In Hawthorn East VIC on “Preliminary Lodgement” at 58 Camberwell Road Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    City of Boroondara commented

    No decision has been made at this time. Officers are still assessing this application and Council is obliged to make a decision under the Planning and Environment Act. This act limits the issues to be considered to planning matters, such as amenity impacts, car parking and traffic generation.

    Community perceptions about the nature of the business or those who participate in the service offered by the business are not relevant planning considerations and will not form part of Council’s decision making process. This application is likely to considered at a public Urban Planning Special Committee in July.

    City of Boroondara - Communications and Engagement Team

  18. In Armadale VIC on “Construction of a...” at 3 & 5 Railway Avenue, Armadale, VIC:

    Eleanor Sarah Hart commented

    Could you please email 3d image/ drawings of development.


  19. In East Launceston TAS on “Utilities - Remove 9 trees...” at Road Reserve between Arthur & Adelaide Streets 18-32 High Street East Launceston TAS 7250:

    Nicola Barton commented

    I find this a total waste of rate payers money. There is actually nothing wrong with the trees that are already there, and to have them replaced with palm trees is crazy. I am sure the $25 000.00 (so we have been told) can be spent more wisely by the LCC. Can you please explain why they need to be replaced, and if going to be replaced by palm trees are these palm trees actually native to Tasmania. Spend your money on cleaning up the undergrowth on the York Street side of the pool and up along Welman street, it is a disgrace.

  20. In Armadale VIC on “Construction of a...” at 3 & 5 Railway Avenue, Armadale, VIC:

    Eleanor Sarah Hart commented

    The Muti story development at 3 and 5 Railway Avenue has some major problems re entry and exit from Railway Ave. to Dandenong Rd . This will not allow a flow of rraffic and could lead to accidents at this intersection.

    Secondly not providing enough parking spaces in the development will over crowd the tiny street of Railway Ave.

    What is needed is a smaller development and enough parking on site for all .

  21. In St Peters NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 23 May Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Jacinta commented

    I'm not saying don't develop, I'm saying don't over develop. There are ways to use what is already there. It doesn't need to be bigger to be better. Be aware of the surroundings and other people. Just look what they've allowed on the corner of Park and Unwins Bridge Road. That monstrosity has hemmed in the cottage behind it, the balconies and windows overlook the houses and yards of the houses around it, it has introduced lengthy shady spots on the street, the list goes on. What's worse is that considering another one on Railway Road. Develop within reason. Don't go overboard.

  22. In Valentine NSW on “Demolition & Dwelling House” at 138 Dilkera Avenue, Valentine NSW 2280:

    Elizabeth Fraser commented

    A new house is already under construction on this site. This is a mistake on the website apparently due to similar application numbering. Please fix this.

  23. In Richmond VIC on “Development of land for a...” at 127 Swan St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Roger Daily commented

    The proliferation of planning applications requesting a waiver of car parking requirements is beyond a joke, and what is worse is that council/VCAT approve these applications. 17 apartments and 4 retail spaces with only 4 parking spaces is ridiculous.It is foolish to believe that people will not own cars, and the result is that they will compete for the limited on street parking (regardless of being able to obtain a parking permit or not). Once these places are built there is no turning back. This development and many like it should not be approved in the City of Yarra

  24. In Richmond VIC on “Development of land for a...” at 127 Swan St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Lou commented

    I have walked past and I know where this site is however I am wondering if this is part of the Clifton development? Please clarify as it appears to be behind hoarding. It is part of an earlier planning permit that is being revised? I share concerns about the constant waiving of car parking. The knock on effect for everyone is dire.

  25. In Darlinghurst NSW on “Change of use of existing...” at 174 Crown Street Darlinghurst NSW 2010:

    Tiffany Schäfer-Howley commented

    To whom it may concern

    We both reside at next door to the above property and would like to petition - the conversion of 174 Crown street, from a commercial establishment to a residence. The main reason for this is that we both genuinely believe that the owner is/has converted this building to a backpacker hostel rather than a residence.

    When parking the car, via the back lane, we both looked into the garage of 174 and noted not only a pile of mattresses (more than the number of rooms) but also a shopping cart full of microwaves. Upon discussion with our neighbour at 172 Crown street, who runs a barbershop out of his premises, and who stands in the shop front for the majority of the day, also noted the comings and goings of 174 with a constant stream of different people.

    The "residents" of 174 have also been causing a disturbance in the neighbourhood with the police having to be called on two occasions, in as many weeks. The first incident occurred on the night of 17th of May when a violent brawl erupted outside both premises. We personally called the police on the night in question and as soon as the people fighting heard sirens they stopped the altercation and those who didn't run away started running into 174.

    Our neighbour at 172 also gave us the reference of the other incident which occurred at 170 Crown Street, where the tenant was having beer bottles thrown at his house. This too was reported to the police, and a reference number set up for any further complaints. This number is: 355397KIT9 Further more to the disturbances the use of marijuana is so strong that it seeps through the wall into our living room.

    Additionally, as the size of our recycling and dustbin are only 110L each (we are a total of 5 residents) we are finding that our bins are being used to the point of being overloaded and we are left without bins. When all the bins are full (once again they're using all the residents bins) they are dumping bags of rubbish (mainly beer bottles, junk and mouldy food) on the street.

    We have been living in the area since last October but since the conversion a few months ago as you can see we have had our fare share of issues. We urge you to investigate the original submission as to reinforce we duly believe that it was lodged without genuine intent. We both separately spoke Eleanor Robertson and she advised us to contact your department. We also believe that there is a compliance issue in relation to this conversion i.e. environmental health, fire safety and possible immigration control issues. Should you have any further questions or queries please do not hesitate to contact one or either of us on the details below.
    Yours Sincerely,

  26. In Darlinghurst NSW on “Change of use of existing...” at 174 Crown Street Darlinghurst NSW 2010:

    Hidden by site administrators
  27. In Hawthorn East VIC on “Preliminary Lodgement” at 58 Camberwell Road Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    Peter Viney commented

    There are many perspectives on this complaint from the perspective of the women who attend the various Pole Princess studios. I would like to lend my perspective as the boyfriend of someone who attends.

    It is frankly offensive to state that any one of these women is a lesser person because of their decision to attend Pole Princess. This business is solely interested in the health and fitness of women, and should be regarded as any other fitness studio. What does it matter whether the forms say "dance studio" or "pole dance studio"? I believe the word dance still features! My girlfriend and three of her friends attend Pole Princess in Mitcham. In the time that they have been there the boost to their self esteem, fitness, and even their friendship has been indescribable. My girlfriend feels happier and healthier thanks to this amazing business. The ladies come and go dressed appropriately, in a jumper and either trackies or leggings. This includes every woman I have seen come and go from the business and every single one of them has displayed a respectful manner concerning the businesses surrounding the studio.

    As for Justin's complaints related to parking and the phones, firstly I expect that Justin will be entering a complaint for every business that applies to use this space, as ANY business that occupies the space will have to use parking. The phones as stated by many above are the phone company's problem and not the problem of Pole Princess.
    The complaint about the sign is also just clutching at straws. I have seen the company sign before many times when dropping off my girlfriend and her friends. The woman featured in the image is wearing a crop top and short shorts. I believe if you went a few doors down to the fernwood that Justin stated is there, you would find similarly clad women also working out. Relating it to an image of pornography is ludicrous. If you believe this is an issue of pornography, I expect you to take up the issue of in appropriate images with every Coles, Safeway, news agency and petrol station that sell magazines showing far more inappropriate images than this on their shelves instore, all within view of any child who walks past.

    Furthermore, Pole Princess is ONLY for women. I do not spectate and have never made an attempt to spectate. As stated previously, this business is a fitness studio, NOT a strip club. It is a business that deserves the same respect as the gym down the street and the architect's office upstairs.

  28. In Ambarvale NSW on “Commercial” at 161 Englorie Park Drive, Glen Alpine, NSW:

    Mr Gilles Bastide commented

    Could you please let me know what has been proposed for development at 161 englorie park drive Glen Alpine NSW 2560.
    I have been told that it could be a religious Meeting Hall to be constructed within residential area.

  29. In Hawthorn East VIC on “Preliminary Lodgement” at 58 Camberwell Road Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    Jade commented

    I think that perhaps Heather and others (not recommended to men) you had better try before you deny?
    It seems that all your comments are directed at the nature of the studio itself rather than the function of the business. Why do you care so much if it's a pole dance studio? Is it because you directly associate strippers with pole dancing? If you've ever opened your mind and been to a strip club, you would know strippers use pole dance poles for nothing. Girls are not going to be walking around half naked in the streets of your town, be realistic. I CHALLENGE YOU HEATHER! To take ONE CLASS at this business's multiple other successful studios and see for yourself.

    If this was a second business, that had all the same planning issues yet, it wasn't a pole dancing studio? I'm sure you wouldn't think twice about it.

    You have a fight with a group of very strong minded women on your hands here.

  30. In Hawthorn East VIC on “Preliminary Lodgement” at 58 Camberwell Road Hawthorn East VIC 3123:

    Bridget Murray commented

    I have been personally affected by images all my life, triggered into feeling uncomfortable about my body. This year marks my 5th year with Anorexia Nervosa and 12 months ago I was given the "okay" by my dietitian to go back to exercise. I could never bring myself to step into a gym ever again. So I went to Pole Princess and for the very first time I felt comfortable in my body, learnt how to exercise for fun (rather than burning calories and losing weight) and got to see photos and people in real life dancing who were all shapes and sizes. I learnt how to have a healthy body image which is incredibly hard to do in today's society with the influence of media.

    By rejecting this permit you are taking away not only a positive empowering space for women, but something which has been incredibly helpful with my and many other people's mental health. I have lived in Boroondara my whole life and have always been proud of the diverse culture we have, but now I feel embarrassed to say I live here when they won't let a DANCE STUDIO open up because it might be too provocative. I feel embarrassed that the council has let narrow-minded views decide the fate of a much loved place.

    Get your shit together please.

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