Recent comments

  1. In Wantirna South VIC on “Six Dwellings” at 17 Helsal Drive, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    Trevor & Marita Cooke commented

    Re: 17 Helsal Drive, Wantirna South - P/2012/6605
    We refer to the abovementioned proposal and are very disappointed that the residents in Helsal, Matilda, Maripossa & Apollo Court have not been advised of the proposed development. How can you gauge the local reaction when no one has been told. It is only by chance that we heard about it on the "grapevine".

    Helsal Drive runs off Matilda Avenue, and in adding six two storey units to the end of Helsal will certainly impact the amount of traffic that will be using our street. It is most probable that each unit houses two cars and hence there will be twelve more cars together with visitors cars that will be using our road. This is a lot of extra traffic in a quiet side street.

    Let us point out to you that when The Knox School purchased the land from Whitten's Nursery, it was made very clear that there was to be no access by road or by foot via a gate from Matilda Avenue so as not to increase the amount of traffic in our quiet street.

    There is already a problem with traffic in Matilda Avenue with cars parked on either side of the road, at the bend - which has a continuous line. There have been many near misses there already and this problem will naturally increase if this development occurs.

    At peak times, Renou Road is a nightmare already, now that the speed humps have been put in together with roadside parking. This means that the traffic has to line up in single file and it can take three total light rotations to get through. This would naturally get worse as well.

    We understand that there is a requirement for more housing, but it doesn't make sense to overcrowd small side streets. If these developments occur in main roads - which we have noticed are being built in Knox - then it is more likely that the disruption of an increase in traffic is absorbed.

    Please be fair and let all the neighbourhood know what you are planning to do to our streets.

  2. In Malvern East VIC on “Construction of a building...” at 379 Wattletree Road, Malvern East, VIC:

    Amanda & Adrian Purnell commented

    We would like to lodge an objection to the proposed development at 379 Wattletree Road and strongly urge that this development is not approved without significant amendment.

    Our objection focuses on the following issues:

    1. Negative impact on the character of the area and surrounding streetscape:
    The proposed development is completely out of character with the existing neighbourhood, which predominantly consists of one and two storey family houses. People who choose to live in the streets of Kingston, Irymple and surrounds make a conscious choice to live in a suburban, leafy, quiet and peaceful family environment. We ourselves left the hustle and bustle of South Yarra and deliberately chose Irymple Ave as a blue chip, desirable location in which to raise our young family. We would not have done so had there been a large three level development on our doorstep, and view that it is unreasonable to expect such a development be approved in its present form.

    2. Setting of an inappropriate precedent:
    There are no three storey dwellings in the nearby area, and approving the proposed development at 379 Wattletree Road would set an inappropriate precedent. We object specifically to the height and also to the large number of dwellings and would like to see both of these reduced.

    3. Traffic congestion exceeding safe capacity limits:
    The proposed development will have a significant, unpalatable impact on traffic congestion on the streets of Kingston and Irymple Avenue. These streets are already struggling to cope with the existing traffic load (which far exceeds normal residential traffic loads, due to close proximity to Central Park, the Central Park shopping precinct, the tram terminus and the Commonwealth Bank).

    The corners of Irymple and Kingston are tight and narrow, and it is often very difficult to safely navigate them as there are multiple cars parked on the street. Our streets cannot cope with any further increase in traffic levels.

    Likewise, exiting Irymple or Kingston onto Wattletree Road is also fraught with danger, due to the significant congestion created by parked cars and existing traffic.

    The lane way which runs parallel to Wattletree and has been proposed as a carpark entrance to the new proposed dwelling is also very tight and congested. It is a single width lane and simply cannot cope with the traffic which 12 new dwellings would generate. Having 19 additional vehicles entering and exiting the laneway is particularly dangerous as the laneway is "T" shaped and single lane.

    It is therefore imperative that the proposed multi dwelling development utilise Wattletree Road rather than the laneway for its carpark ingress and egress.

    4. Unsustainable impact on street parking:
    The rising cost of home ownership has resulted in many existing nearby residents having older children living at home into their twenties, resulting in many residents parking cars on the street as they have more cars than their driveways can fill. The demographic profile of existing residents suggests this problem will only worsen over time. The area cannot cope with a further reduction in parking spaces which will ensue from having 12 additional dwellings, which will require additional street parking for both residents and visitors.

    In addition, the area's proximity to Central Park, the Central Park shopping precinct, the tram terminus and the Commonwealth Bank all result in non residents parking in nearby residential streets, further exacerbating the difficulty residents find in locating a parking space in their street. We have previously (successfully) lobbied to have parking restricted in Irymple Ave for non residents (ie non permit holders) as I was frustrated with the lack of street parking. At the time we lobbied for 2 hour parking, we took a petition to members of Irymple and Kingston and almost every resident I spoke to agreed traffic congestion was a huge issue which needed to be addressed. We have also successfully requested that Council create a "no standing" zone on the dangerous corner of Irymple (opposite #21) because of the frequency of tradesmen and other visitors parking on the corner, creating a dangerous blind spot. Despite the above, we are frequently ringing council to report people illegally parking, negatively impacting visibility and safety for other road users.

    We appreciate you taking our concerns into account and trust that the proposed redevelopment at 379 Wattletree Road is not approved without significant amendment to its (a) height, (b) size and (c) location of carpark ingress and egress.

    Thank you,

    Amanda & Adrian Purnell

  3. In Perth WA on “Serviced Apartments 18 levels” at 176 Adelaide Terrace:

    C Mertz commented

    Dear Sirs,

    We bought a unit at I-spire a year ago off the plan. It was sold to us as an apartment complex. We are very disturbed by the fact that the application is now for a service apartment complex.
    We do not agree with this.

  4. In Malvern East VIC on “Construction of a building...” at 379 Wattletree Road, Malvern East, VIC:

    ian m white commented

    City of Stonnington
    Planning Unit

    I am pleased to have the opportunity to lodge an objection to application 0503/12, 379 Wattletree Road Malvern East 3145#, multi dwelling development , Caron (Carson?~) Property. The grounds for my objection and a suggested basis of plan variations are as follows:

    Precedent
    The local community in the near surround (including the Gascoigne Estate) does not have any 3 storey developments and few multi dwellings. By contrast, the proposal cites 2 blocks of 3 storey flats further away and which are amid an area which has several blocks of flats. The precedent brings with it higher density, greater height and challenging visual and bulk impacts.

    Over development
    The proposal will, in my view, adversely impact on the character of the neighbourhood and the amenity of surrounding properties including the adjoining Gascoigne Estate.

    Residential Area
    The area is characterised as a single dwelling and family oriented community. Whilst over shadowing appears minimal, overlooking concerns remain in 3 directions.

    All consuming
    The entire block and the air surrounding is all consumed by building. The overlooking issue, particularly given the height, raises much concern about likely invasion of neighbourhood space and privacy.

    Heritage consideration
    Whilst there does not appear to be an overlay, the proposal does not appear to be consistent with essential heritage characteristics of the near communities. Further, the proposal in a sense dictates a new heritage direction and amplifies concerns in the precedent discussion above.

    Freedom and safety of movement
    Currently pedestrians (including many elderly, children and mobility impaired people) and drivers of all categories have to contend with difficult and restrictive traffic conditions. The prospect of up to 19 residential vehicles plus assorted visiting vehicles is particularly unacceptable. The foreseeable traffic management consequences would also seem out of step with several of the Council promoted sustainable design principles which are about good for the wider community. This area given its proximity to the multi purpose Central Park and the associated heavy traffic flows, tram terminus and related parking along with clearway and local parking restrictions will have a severe compounding impact on existing complex traffic management problems.

    Yours sincerely
    Ian M White

    # Where is the boundary of Malvern East 3145 and Glen Iris 3146?

    ~ Carson Property Group
    1 / 9 Cubitt Street
    Cremorne VIC 3121
    9421 2646

  5. In Malvern East VIC on “Construction of a building...” at 379 Wattletree Road, Malvern East, VIC:

    Judith and Keith Heale commented

    We are very concerned at the proposed development at 379 Wattletree Road. We object to its impact on our locality, the Kingston Street North / Irymple Avenue precinct. In particular:

    1. the opening of the carpark into the lane behind the property. This will spill all its traffic into the minor and very narrow streets of Irymple Avenue and Erica Avenue, which cannot cope with any more traffic. The traffic is usually one way at a time now, because of the density of parking, and an increase in traffic would be extremely challenging to traffic movement. The new carpark should open onto Wattletree Road, as the nearby flats already do.

    2. The application for reduced onsite parking. The parking in Irymple Avenue has already been recently restricted to 2 hour during the day on one side, because of parking congestion. To put in more dwellings which will require on-street parking is unreasonable and unrealistic. It will make even more difficult the parking of local residents and their visitors. At least the tenants of the proposed development should be able to park onsite! The parking of their visitors and tradesmen will be another problem.

    3. The application for a third storey. The highest buildings in our area are two storeys, and this proposal would change the nature of our residential area, and diminish the quality and desirability of the area. It would decrease local property values.

    Please do not pass this development without considerable amendment.

  6. In Caloundra QLD on “5 Park Street Caloundra -...” at 2 Park Pl, Caloundra, QLD:

    Bob Stoker commented

    Excellent proposal as Caloundra needs more development of this nature. Private enterprise supported by small business ideas that support and promote local produce and product ensures varied business possibilities in this area.

    Hope this proposal is successful as Caloundra has not had much development in this neighbourhood for a few years.

  7. In Leichhardt NSW on “Remove tree” at 23 James Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Janette McInnies commented

    Hello,

    I am a neighbour in James Street and worry about that tree at number 23. It has so many dead branches and really doesn't look very healthy. The fallen leaves are tinged with orange which indicates that the tree is dying according to information supplied to me by Glenys (a Council Aborist) at the time our tree (same tree) was allowed to be taken down.

    Kind regards, Jan McInnies PSM

  8. In Malvern East VIC on “Construction of a building...” at 379 Wattletree Road, Malvern East, VIC:

    Peta and Stuart Taylor commented

    To Whom It May Concern,

    We strongly object to the development of 379 Wattletree Road to accommodate 12 dwellings which will be 3 storeys in height. This is out of character for the area and will set a precedence for future constructions at this height. This adversely changes the nature and character of the area from a family, leafy suburban neighbourhood to one of increased high density housing.

    Concern surrounds the increased traffic congestion through and around Irymple Avenue and Kingston Street. These streets are already subjected to high volumes of traffic with parking at a premium. Often the result is restricted access, with traffic reduced to a single vehicle width. This already causes much frustration as access to turn into Irymple Avenue and Kingston Street is often hampered by the number of cars parked on both sides of the street, exacerbated by vehicles illegally parked. The proposed use of a car park for the dwellings with use of the lane way between Kinston Street and Erica Avenue is not feasible given that lane way access is already hampered by fences boarding the lane encroaching on the lane and restricting its usage. Additionally, Erica Avenue also suffers the same congestion and access issues as Irymple Avenue and Kingston Street. It is possible that each dwelling will have two cars associated with it plus additional cars for visitors, tradesmen etc the current street scape is not able to cope with the additional traffic and parking requirements despite the proposed allocation of off street parking.

    We trust our concerns are considered in restricting the proposed development. We look forward to your reply.

  9. In Mt Victoria NSW on “Additional use - retail...” at 26 Station Street, Mount Victoria, NSW:

    Octavia Barron Martin commented

    I urge you, for the sake of the ailing commercial centre of Mt Victoria, to please do all that you can to pass this planning application.
    Too often do the historical hearts of townships end up entirely authentic but neglected derelicts. The disintegration of listed properties throughout Britain are testimonies to the "killed with kindness" result of discouraging investment or improvement in areas and properties rich with heritage. A quick visit to the frighteningly (not charming) quiet heart of Mt Vic will show you how welcome and necessary the proposed business will be. We need this. Thank you for your time and consideration. I have no affliation whatsover with this application or the business.

  10. In Malvern East VIC on “Construction of a building...” at 379 Wattletree Road, Malvern East, VIC:

    Adrienne Donaldson commented

    ver devlopment of the site and loss of amenity due to onsite parking reductions. Adds congestion to intersection causing residents of Iryple street traffic congestion.

  11. In Wantirna South VIC on “Six Dwellings” at 17 Helsal Drive, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    Ken O'Connor commented

    To whom it may concern:

    I wish to lodge our strong objection to the approval of this application for the construction and occupation of six double storey dwellings.
    The introduction of high density housing in this location will result in a loss of amenity and character change to an area which is currently low density urban living. Existing property values will be eroded by this and any subsequent approvals for this type of development.

    This area is quite poorly serviced in terms of vehicle movements as the streets were designed around single dwellings and at a time when 2 or more vehicles per household was uncommon. Many residences now have up to 4 vehicles per residence. The addition of these dwellings will result in increased traffic volume and has the potential to create parking congestion in the event that multiple car parking isn't to be made available within the property.

    There is already severe traffic congestion on Renou Road as traffic is regularly banked from Merryn Grove to Burwood Highway every morning Monday to Friday between 8:15 and 9:00 am. Generally, the estate commonly know as the Knox College/Old Orchard, has very poor access to High Street Road, Burwood Highway and Cathies Lane as little thought seems to have been given to traffic flow during the development of the estate.
    Increasing housing density will only accentuate this problem.

    I also point out the lack of notification to residents of this application being lodged. If approved the impact of the proposed development will be felt by residents in Matilda Ave, Apollo Court, Helsal Drive and Maripossa Court and notification through this area should be carried out . This lack of notification gives no opportunity for comment from a large number of residents and is likely to result in a misleading view of residents feelings.

  12. In Sydney NSW on “Crescent Bar - Hotel licence” at B 468-472 George St, Sydney 2000:

    FRANK commented

    In relation to this venue, will security be assigned to control ingress/egress, crowd control, smoking areas, and noise.

  13. In Queens Park NSW on “Queens Park Pavilion Café -...” at Darley Rd, Queens Park 2022:

    Simon Carless commented

    A much needed boost to the lifestyle services in the area.

    Great idea, good luck

  14. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of 5 dwellings...” at 5 Lamond Drive, Turramurra, NSW:

    Leighanne Sietsma commented

    Dear Ku-ring-gai Council,

    As a resident in Duff Street I strongly oppose this application for 2 x 5 storey developments with 86 units in 5 Lamond Street.

    There is already a large development going ahead at 1440 Pacific Highway and 1-3 Lamond Drive, so another large construction would be overdeveloping this area.

    There is already proposals for large construction to occur along the Pacific Highway to Finlay street.

    This is a small street that drives out onto the Pacific Highway, adding another 86 units with a least as many cars increases the congestion and the traffic flow.

    I strongly object to this proposal and don't believe that it fit which what the residents of the area told the Council at the future planning meetings the council held at the beginning of the year.

    regards
    Leighanne Sietsma

  15. In Grays Point NSW on “Alterations and Additions...” at 180 Grays Point Rd Grays Point 2232:

    Heather Jacobson commented

    I wonder who will get this comment

  16. In Grays Point NSW on “Alterations and Additions...” at 180 Grays Point Rd Grays Point 2232:

    Simone commented

    this is still a test

  17. In Upper Ferntree Gully VIC on “Use and development of the...” at 1172 Burwood Highway, Upper Ferntree Gully VIC 3156:

    Graham Eden commented

    I hope that Knox council will consider existing residents rights when making a decision on this application along with the foothills policies for the area and the cionstant flooding problems in this area
    which the council is well aware of.

  18. In Parramatta NSW on “Section 96 (1A)...” at Cowper Cottage 9 Cowper Street Parramatta NSW 2150:

    Matt commented

    I am currently an Engineering student at the University of Western Sydney, I was just wondering, what is the timeline of this build and approximate evaluation of the building?
    Thankyou
    Matt

  19. In Parramatta NSW on “Section 96 (1A)...” at Cowper Cottage 9 Cowper Street Parramatta NSW 2150:

    Matt commented

    I am currently an Engineering student at the University of Western Sydney, I was just wondering, what is the timeline of this build and approximate evaluation of the building?
    Thankyou
    Matt

  20. In Grays Point NSW on “Alterations and Additions...” at 180 Grays Point Rd Grays Point 2232:

    Beth Morris commented

    This is a text to see if you get this submission.
    Records - Please tell Simone and ROFF if you get this.
    Thanks
    Beth

  21. In Seven Hills NSW on “Dwelling -...” at 5 Elbe Street Seven Hills 2147, NSW:

    ronsin commented

    hello
    my friend's wife seeks his father who lived 114 Ellam drive seven hills, there are still two years my friend's uncle had news from nothing.
    We saw on the google home for sale.
    We know that Olga had a son from a previous marriage, we do not know the name.
    My father's friend was Aleksandar Todorovic and we want to know where he is buried. (He died Oct. 31, 1986)
    I use a translator may therefore be difficult
    thank you very much for the help you can give us

  22. In Morisset NSW on “Drainage, Earthworks, Lighting” at 40 Ourimbah Street Morisset NSW 2264, NSW:

    Coral Hill commented

    could you please tell me what is being built on this land . As the maps posted to us show behind our property but the address listed is in front of our property . We are at No: 16 Ourimbah st. ? thanks

  23. In Thornbury VIC on “On-Premises Licence” at 848-850 High Street, Thornbury 3071, VIC:

    Julian Crupi commented

    To whom it may concern,

    It has been brought to my attention that the premises at 848 High Street Thornbury is applying for an extended liquor licence.

    As a next door neighbour i would like to state my opinion as being against this going through. I believe the licence requested is to allow 1 am trading for 7 days of the week.

    The said business backs right onto a laneway that seperates them from where we live at 2 Dundas Street. As it stands we already have issues with other neighbours having parties until the small hours of the morning and using this laneway as a place of not only commuting; from such parties at 1 - 3am in the morning; but also as a urinal!! Such commuting in this usually very quiet lane amplifies even the smallest of sounds keeping us awake. I hate to imagine that this could be happening every week night AND every weekend!!

    Such an extension would not only encourage such noise as mentioned but also extended noise way after they close as people leave the premises finding their way home.

    I have lived at 2 Dundas St for nearly 2 years now and would like to continue to do so without having to call on the police every night just to be able to sleep.

    Kind Regards

  24. In Newtown NSW on “To carry out alteration to...” at 407 King Street Newtown NSW 2042:

    Henare Degan commented

    I support this application.

    Small bars like this are improving the vibrancy of King Street and this will be a welcome addition.

    I also really like the fact that they respecting the history of the site by planning to retain the existing shopfront.

    Thanks!

  25. In Bellingen NSW on “Fresh Produce Packing and...” at 6 Bowra St Bellingen NSW 2:

    Cameron Bragg commented

    A good use of land close to town.

  26. In Torquay QLD on “0 / 0 denmans camp road,...” at 0 / 0 Denmans Camp Road, Torquay, QLD:

    Kathi Dewsbery commented

    This is already a very busy corner. We have another shopping centre including an early/late opening supermarket at the intersection of Bideford and Boat Harbour. I do not believe another strip shopping centre so close to the current one on Bideford is justified. We have shops closed all over Torquay. Let's fill those shops before we create new ones please. As it is, the centre on Bideford Street near the Esplanade is becoming deserted.

  27. In Blacks Beach QLD on “Multiple Dwelling Units (69)” at 34 Bourke Street Blacks Beach QLD 4740:

    Petrina Frankham commented

    I am writing to oppose the development application submitted for 34 Bourke Street, Blacks Beach Qld 4740.
    The reason that I am opposing the prospective development is due to the current road infrastructure of Bourke Street and concerns associated with the safety of residents!
    Key concerns are as follows:
    * The Seawind Caravan Park is currently completing their refurbishment, however, no parking provisions have been put in place or enforced by Mackay City Council. As a result up to 20 - 30 vehicles per evening park on the roadside. This then causes issues for the School and Public Bus system that attempts to manoeuvre their way through the street each day (in a safe manner), not to mention residents attempting to make their way to work.
    * The second issue is that there are no footpaths or curbing along Bourke Street, the increased traffic and construction of this proposed development (along with current developments) will certainly pose a safety issue for pedestrians, locals, children and visitors alike.
    * Another factor to take into consideration is the already commenced development of Carroll Street (which stems off Bourke Street). I would assume that the development of this land alone (without even taking into consideration the construction of homes) will take up to two years. Bourke street residents have already witnessed an increase of traffic, such as trucks and work vehicles (Bourke Street appears to be the main access point for this development) which are already causing further traffic congestion and at times (due to the size of the trucks) are physically blocking people's homes for small periods of time.
    * I also do not believe that adequate parking facilities have been provided in the development and as anyone can physically see upon inspection of the site - there is NOWHERE to park if the existing parking facilities are full (except back on the street, again congesting traffic and causing safety issues for people attempting to enjoy the neighbourhood.).
    * And finally, to add to the congestion and poor infrastructure, Mackay City Council's work trucks and vehicles enjoy having their lunch at the Blacks Beach Park - which is lovely but with the already existing heavy traffic, I believe that it is too much for the road infrastructure to support.
    I have already noticed the obvious impact of the current state of Bourke Street, Blacks Beach by way of the decrease (in fact total abandonment) of international tour groups such as Contiki and Australian Scenic Tours enjoying day trips to Blacks Beach Park! It's sad that a beach that is world renown cannot be comfortably accessed by the world's citizens!
    I would also like to point out that upon completion of the very small portion of development that the Mackay City Council did at Blacks Beach Park a few years ago, ALL residents who lived in that section of the developed road were threatened with Parking Tickets should they park on the footpath or in front of their homes! These residents have (unwillingly complied) only to witness the Council allowing the monstrosities (listed above) to transpire before them! This is unfair, unjust and hypocritical to say the least!
    Bourke Street is a lovely piece of paradise that is quickly aesthetically beginning to resemble a third world nation, although after my recent visit to Morocco I can testify that their roads (yes, in a 'developing' country) are in fact better and safer than the road that I live on here in Bourke Street, Blacks Beach, AUSTRALIA!
    I would hope and appreciate that from a professional, social and safety standpoint that the above concerns are taken into consideration in the application of this development and any further developments that may be put forward for Bourke Street!

  28. In Randwick NSW on “Integrated seniors living...” at 57-63 St Pauls Street Randwick NSW 2031:

    Chris Hurst commented

    To whom it may concern,

    I'm a current resident @ 3/6 Daintrey Crescent, Randwick. We've owned this property for approx 3 years and have been a resident of Randwick for about 6 years in total. I've recently become aware of the proposed development of the above site and would like to voice a number of concerns relating to the size of the proposed build.

    Whilst I support the continuing development of our community, I believe it's important to retain the culture and feel that's grown over the years. The size of the proposed development is WAY out of character for the area and I must express our extreme concern that the property is grossly over-sized based on the surrounding buildings.

    When looking to buy a property we were attracted to "The Spot" for the vibrant village feel. Every weekend people travel to the area for the safe and interesting restaurants, cafe's, and nightlife. I don't believe a retirement "Super Centre" will add anything to the lovely atmosphere created by the young families and professionals that reside here.

    Specifically my concerns are as follows:

    1. The amount of proposed units is excessive and will completely change the demographic and atmosphere of the area.
    2. The huge scale of the building works will effect all residents and cause months of disruption.
    3. The height of the proposed build is monstrous and will over shadow all units and houses within close proximity. This in tandem with the size of the build will destroy the leafy landscape and dominate the skyline.
    4. I am very concerned our property will decline in value due to the change in the area's demographic. Currently this is a very sought after area because of the character which will obliterated if this request is approved.
    5. Increase in traffic will cause an already congested area to become worse. Regardless of underground car parks visitors will continue to park on our street. This is proven every night with movie goers failing to use the Wilson car park.

    As a financier, I understand the need for development better than most. I'm certainly not opposed to the site being developed but we must keep in mind the effect on current residents and rate payers. The people in this district have worked hard to build a supportive and close-nit community. I think we deserve a development that's going to match the character and spirit of the surrounding area's.

    I thank you for your consideration of the above.

    Kind regards

    Chris Hurst and Charlotte Matheny
    3/6 Daintrey Cres,
    Randwick, 2031, NSW

  29. In Bellingen NSW on “Fresh Produce Packing and...” at 6 Bowra St Bellingen NSW 2:

    Michelle Inwood and Peter Todd commented

    We would like to know more information....

    Does this mean that there will be an increase of truck traffic? If so we feel the entrance road needs to be fixed of pot holes, due to noise etc.

    What are the hours of operation?

    What will be the noise restrictions put on the type of business, being in a residential area?

  30. In Camberwell VIC on “Construct twenty one (21)...” at 35 Allambee Avenue Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Gordon and Margaret MacMillan commented

    Would be very concerned at such a high density building in a narrow suburban street on a relatively small block.
    What would the construct of the building be and parking provisions.
    Would like opportunity to comment on proposed development and lodge comments as appropriate.

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