Recent comments

  1. In Woolooware NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 8 Hyndman Pde Woolooware 2230:

    nick de guingand commented

    Is it allowed to build a dual occ on a block size of less than 600m2?

  2. In Newtown NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 18 Enmore Road Newtown NSW 2042:

    Kate Furnell commented

    As a local of 29 years we support Saray and approve of extending the business hours. They are a family run business and part of the local community fabric.

  3. In Wantirna South VIC on “Construction of five (5)...” at 267 Stud Road, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    Kathy commented

    Even without carparking dispensation, there is still a problem with the "tandem car parking" as most people wont park 1 car in the single garage and the second car in the driveway in front of the garage but will park the second car on the street. There should be two easily usable car parking spaces per residence and definitely no dispensation under any circumstances.

  4. In Gladesville NSW on “To amend the Hunters Hill...” at 1, 1C, 1A and 1B Massey Street; 1-3 Flagstaff Street; 2,4,8,&10 Cowell Street; and part of 215 Victoria Road, Gladesville:

    J Gibson commented

    I'm a long time resident of gladesville - within HH council area - and strongly object to this proposal for the following reasons;
    1. Overshadowing - I live 3 streets from the site and stand the risk of being overshadowed by massive tower blocks - why should so many residents be so affected by the prospect of such a huge increase in scale?
    2. Traffic - Junction St, Venus St and Batemans Rd in the near vicinity are extremely narrow streets. Currently these streets are used as rat runs at afternoon peak for those seeking to avoid Victoria road gridlock. How do we think these narrow local roads might cope with such large scale development / extra residents / local traffic movements? (Batemans road is 6.7m wide). Has this been assessed?
    3. Local amenity - gladesville public school is bursting at the seams, local parking is terrible, footpaths are narrow (eg Massey st between Victoria Rd and the shopping centre). None of this is amenable to the proposed scale and size of this site.
    4. Other developments - please consider the multitude of other developments in the gladesville area and their combined impact.

    I agree with sympathetic and appropriate development in the area but just not to this scale and proportion. I cannot believe anyone (except the developer) could think this is in any way good for Gladesville.

  5. In Logan Reserve QLD on “Combined Application (RL 3...” at 298-304 Logan Reserve Road Logan Reserve QLD 4133:

    Gary and Marjon White wrote to local councillor Phil Pidgeon

    We fully agree with all the comments above. we've been here for over 25 years, back when there were very few homes on School Rd. We moved here as we wanted a quiet rural lifestyle. Ever since Stoneleigh Reserve happened the area has been completely ruined, we've called police numerous times due to people excessively speeding down School Rd. Nothings changed and only getting worse since the second roundabout was put in. School Rd is getting used as a racetrack, we need some traffic calming devices put through to slow people down. We used to go for a lot of family walks, but are reluctant now due to the number of people speeding and losing control, and crashing, generally through the first round about. Straight onto the footpath. A little while ago I walked up to the school to collect the kids and we had been home not even 5 minutes, and a car had hit the power pole, right where we were just walking. There's no armeco railing protecting the pedestrians. We saw a car come off the back of a tow truck and into the culvert just a few days ago. We have trouble getting out of our driveway some mornings, and the last thing we need is more condensed housing to make the traffic even worse. It would be ridiculous and thoughtless to allow more estates into this area.

    P P
    Phil Pidgeon local councillor for Logan City Council
    replied to Gary and Marjon White

    Hi,
    I understand what you are saying. speed is indeed a very real issues along School Road, and also a lot of other local roads. There is unfortunately not a lot that can be done to reduce the speed of drivers who are already disrespecting the posted speed limits and really have no regard to the local community or the people who live in it.

    Unfortunately School Road, along with Logan Reserve Road are major collector roads and as such they cannot have speed humps and the like as they are not in accordance with accepted Australian road standards. The posted speed limit along a portion of School Road is now down to 60 km/hr and cannot be lwered any further due to the road status.

    I am all in favour of supporting having properly constructed roundabouts and as a result of a recent development, Council had another roundabout constructed on School Road at the intersection of Loganview Road. It is quite disturbing that despite the efforts to slow drivers down on this road we have a small percentage of people that want to disregard the traffic calming and the speed limit and have had accidents as a result of this. Council cannot police this stupid behaviour and can only put so much concrete and steel in place to try and discourage it.

    The roundabout just constructed is very aggressive and if this doesn’t slow drivers down, I do not know what will.

    With regards to the planning issues, I am responding to these above and I trust that my response will help residents understand some of what is happening. I am always happy to meet with anyone wo has questions in this and happy to come out and sit down with you with what information I have.

    Kind Regards
    Phil

  6. In Holmview QLD on “Dual Occupancy (Against...” at 310 Tallagandra Road Holmview QLD 4207:

    Councillors Support Division 6 commented

    Good afternoon Lincoln,
    If you would like to contact Council to discuss this development application in more detail, you can do so during business hours (Monday to Friday, 8am to 5pm) via the following methods:
    - phone on 07 3412 5269; or
    - in person at the Planning, Plumbing and Building Counter at 150 Wembley Road, Logan Central.

    Alternatively you can email Council anytime at bpuda@logan.qld.gov.au

    Development Assessment Branch, Logan City Council
    150 Wembley Road, Logan Central

  7. In Gladesville NSW on “To amend the Hunters Hill...” at 1, 1C, 1A and 1B Massey Street; 1-3 Flagstaff Street; 2,4,8,&10 Cowell Street; and part of 215 Victoria Road, Gladesville:

    Sabina FIELDING-SMITH commented

    I am a long term resident of both Ryde and Hunters Hill Council areas. I have seen it go from a green oasis to a ghetto of apartments which puts pressure on all aspects of living in these areas. Throwing up over height 'butter boxes' will not increase the quality of life for those in such buildings or those in domestic housing sitting cheek by jowl - it is totally out of character with the area and will cause many problems with traffic, parking, safety the general amenity and 'community' of the area - low quality of life for all residents will ensue. It is not in keeping with the area and should be reviewed down. Where is the infrastructure to support such an over development? Only the councils and developers win from such a development proposal. This needs a total re think - definitely back to the drawing board with more input from the community about what we need - not what will line pockets.

  8. In Newtown NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 18 Enmore Road Newtown NSW 2042:

    Anne Wilson commented

    I have supported Sarah for many years. The family run a fantastic business and I fully support their application.

  9. In Woolgoolga NSW on “Swimming Pool” at 2 A Newman Street Woolgoolga NSW 2456:

    leah sjoberg commented

    the house built on this site is within a flood-prone site - building a swimming pool here is not a good idea - the house is so large there is no yard to speak off so we would like to know where this pool is going

  10. In Gladesville NSW on “To amend the Hunters Hill...” at 1, 1C, 1A and 1B Massey Street; 1-3 Flagstaff Street; 2,4,8,&10 Cowell Street; and part of 215 Victoria Road, Gladesville:

    Rachel Morgan commented

    I am a local resident.
    It is disappointing to see amendments used as a way to circumvent thorough consultation procedures.
    The large buildings are not in keeping with the housing in local streets. It is aesthetically unappealing but also totally impractical in terms of transport, roads and schools.

    Victoria Road, while being a significant through-road between the city and Parramatta, cannot cope with increasingly over-sized apartment blocks. There has already been significant traffic issues in relation to other developments nearing completion. Once accommodation is open, this will only increase. Other streets in neighbouring councils are feeling similar pressure and are causing great stress on bus and road networks. The devlopment between the Gladesville Bridge and Ryde is already putting pressure on schools, traffic, transport and amenities. We chose to live here because it was not like Chatswood, Roseville, Burwood and Artarmon.

    This is an unacceptable change to community culture. We do not want to be a a ghetto-like suburb which has lost its character and intimacy.

  11. In Brighton Le Sands NSW on “Integrated Development -...” at 109 - 110 The Grand Parade, Brighton Le Sands NSW 2216:

    Glen Wilson commented

    I currently own property at 4/113 the Grand Parade Brighton Le Sands.
    I object to this development just for the sheer size of it on a small block of land.
    Entering and leaving my unit in peak hour is a nightmare due to the sheer volume of traffic on the Grand Parade in morning peak hour and also on the weekends.
    To add another 15 cars leaving and entering this property on the Grand parade just complicates the traffic issue further.

  12. In Gladesville NSW on “To amend the Hunters Hill...” at 1, 1C, 1A and 1B Massey Street; 1-3 Flagstaff Street; 2,4,8,&10 Cowell Street; and part of 215 Victoria Road, Gladesville:

    Russell Young commented

    The team at Gladesville Community Group are following this attempt to change the planning controls, and will be providing information to email subscribers.

    Community members should send an email to mail@gladesvillecommunity.com to join the email list. The Gladesville Community Group website is out of date but information is still being sent to subscribers by email.

    There are many valid comments on this website and it is understood that they will be provided to the consent authority, but we understand individual submissions (letters or emails) sent directly to the consent authority to mean more than 'petition' style submissions.

    The applicant will have well-funded professional submissions arguing for their case. The community needs to be organised and informed if we are to properly argue against such amendments to planning controls, and associated Development Applications.

  13. In Wantirna South VIC on “Construction of five (5)...” at 267 Stud Road, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    Terry Swan wrote to local councillor Adam Gill

    I made a similar comment about another mult-unit development with reduced parking (1 Newman Road, Wantirna South) two weeks ago but have not heard back from local Councillor Gill. I hope Councillors are hearing loud and clear the community's message. It is not enough for the Council to talk about, and pride itself on 'green, leafy Knox' and then absolve Developers from providing basic amenities such as off street parking and forcing parking into the streets instead - a reality when dwellings are three and four bedrooms in size and there is no tram at the end of your street!
    Try and see the trees! Watch the garbage trucks negotiate the streets! Profit-driven Developers don't care about what they leave behind! Why is the Council giving them this windfall?

    Delivered to local councillor Adam Gill. They are yet to respond.

  14. In Logan Reserve QLD on “Combined Application (RL 3...” at 298-304 Logan Reserve Road Logan Reserve QLD 4133:

    Gary and Marjon White wrote to local councillor Darren Power

    We fully agree with all the comments above. We've been here for over 25 years, back when there were very few homes on school Rd. We moved here as we wanted a quiet rural lifestyle. Ever since Stoneleigh Reserve happened the area has been completely ruined, we've called the police numerous times due to people excessively speeding down School Rd. Nothings changed and only gotten worse since the second roundabout was put in. School Rd is getting used as a racetrack, we need some traffic calming devices put through to slow people down. We used to go for a lot of family walks, but are reluctant now due to the number of people speeding and losing control, and crashing, generally through the first roundabout. Straight onto the footpath. A little while ago I walked up to the School to collect the kids and we had been home not even five minutes, and a car had hit the power pole, right where we were just walking. There's no armeco railing protecting the pedestrians. We saw a car come of the back of a tow truck and into the culvert just a few days ago. We have trouble getting out of our driveway some mornings, and the last thing we need is more condensed housing to make the traffic even worse. It would be ridiculous and thoughtless to allow more estates into this area.

    D P
    Darren Power local councillor for Logan City Council
    replied to Gary and Marjon White

    Dear Gary and Marion,
    I understand your concerns and I thank you for bringing these issues to my attention. However I am not your local councillor, Cr Phil Pidgeon is. I would suggest you ring Cr Pidgeon on 0411 869 109 and talk to him about this application he may very well be on side with you on this. The reason it is important to get the local councillor for that area on side, is that he will carry more weight in council, as many a time the council will go with the local councillor as it is he who has the local knowledge.

    Regards
    Darren

    Councillor Darren Power | Councillor for Division 10 | Logan City Council
    Phone: 07 3412 5510 | PO Box 3226 Logan City DC Qld 4114
    | www.logan.qld.gov.au facebook.com/logancitycouncil | twitter.com/logancc

    Division 10 includes Carbrook, Cornubia (part of), Daisy Hill (part of) and Shailer Park
    Logan City: Building Our Communities, Our Businesses and Our Pride

  15. In Gladesville NSW on “To construct a 6-storey...” at 1 Stansell St, Gladesville, NSW Australia:

    Danny Horstead commented

    This is so excessive. None of these units will reduce property prices. The developer builds them for maximum profit not as a community service to help people with more affordable housing.
    Also. I live in Harvard St where the parking is already past maximum. My unit block has 15 units and 15 spots. We own two cars so one is always parked on the street. If I get home from work after 6pm I quite often have to park 2-3 blocks away or up Pittwater road. These streets can't handle the parking as it is.

  16. In Clovelly NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 32 Cliffbrook Parade Clovelly NSW 2031:

    Edward Slade commented

    The designs look ok and I like the sandstone/zinc to keep the building in conformity with the area while adding a modern aspect. I am concerned that the location of the swimming pool is a bit too prominent. It will be visible from their neighbours and from the coastal walk. The pool's proximity to the steps of the coastal path may also be a concern. The coastal path steps go down steeply right in front of the pool meaning any splash or toys/balls etc from the pool may hit people on the steps below, from a height. The garden sits on the edge of a cliff and as the report says, the next house at no.34 has a garden which is much lower down. Care must be taken in construction to make sure that the cliff remains robust.

  17. In Gladesville NSW on “To amend the Hunters Hill...” at 1, 1C, 1A and 1B Massey Street; 1-3 Flagstaff Street; 2,4,8,&10 Cowell Street; and part of 215 Victoria Road, Gladesville:

    Anne Wagstaff commented

    Lack of infrastructure to accommodate the extra density of housing and the change from a suburban feel to a high rise scape are the main reasons I oppose the vastness of this proposed development. The community needs are being sacrificed while developers are reaping the gains.

  18. In Caves Beach NSW on “Telstra Mobile Phone Base...” at 5 Scenic Drive, Caves Beach NSW 2281:

    Paul and Helen Gwan commented

    It is very disappointing that Telstra have decided to proceed with this application even though the residents passionately opposed it at the public meeting held on Thursday 21st August 2014.
    Telstra chose to focus on the visual impact issue, whilst the residents were more concerned with the health aspect. This structure will only be approx. 42m to the nearest home; 44m to an aged care facility and 150m to a preschool. In some overseas countries, these structures are not permitted within 300m of any preschool/school. Experts have not been able to agree on the health risks associated with towers and EME, so surely Telstra should err on the side of caution to protect our community. We are told that the effects are less than using a mobile phone. However, using a mobile phone is firstly a conscious decision on the part of the user and secondly, it is not in use 24/7. The differences being, the residents did not request this structure be built in their backyards and they have no escape from the constant emissions. We are aware that Optus have already requested to use the structure which surely will increase such emissions. Telstra's response at the meeting was that ARPANSA was the communities' watchdog as to emission levels. In 2011 Senator Bob Brown submitted a report to Parliament highlighting that of 18000 telecommunication facilities, ARPANSA had checked only 21. Also, ACMA had audited the records of only 474 of the 18000 facilities for compliance with EMR standards. If this structure is erected, who will regulate the emissions and protect the residents? Certainly not the above bodies! Will these towers be the asbestos and tobacco of the future?
    In an area that has so much open land, which is unsuitable for residential development, why has Telstra decided on a location so close to homes and schools? Could the answer be based purely on economic reasons? This location is accessible and already cleared which would save Telstra time and expense. Does this corporation put it's bottom line before the welfare of the community?
    To add to the resident's grievances, the Telstra panel at the August meeting agreed that the proposed tower was not situated in a position to efficiently provide coverage to the entire desired area. Surely get it right the first time!
    We sincerely hope that the planning authority will listen to their community's concerns and reject Telstra's application.

  19. In Wantirna South VIC on “Construction of five (5)...” at 267 Stud Road, Wantirna South VIC 3152:

    Laurence Motteram wrote to local councillor Adam Gill

    Of course the developer wants car parking dispensation, so he can make more profit from the site. But the community has the reality that every adult resident does own a car, and they will park it where they can. Five dwellings with an average of 1.5 adults per dwelling means 7 or 8 cars parked somewhere. Plus visitors. The community is paying a fortune for local roads that have become private parking for multi-unit residents. Look left, look right, can't see a thing for parked cars. The road is for driving on, not for parking cars.

    Delivered to local councillor Adam Gill. They are yet to respond.

  20. In Logan Reserve QLD on “Combined Application (RL 3...” at 298-304 Logan Reserve Road Logan Reserve QLD 4133:

    K Stibbe commented

    I agree wholeheartedly. I've lived here for over 15 years, the cramped mass population of Stoneleigh Reserve has killed the quaint peaceful suburb. I won't even allow my kids to walk around the neighbourhood any longer due to the hoons & druggie. Very sad.....

  21. In Empire Bay NSW on “Refreshment Rooms & Car Park” at 306 - 332 Empire Bay Drive, Empire Bay NSW 2257:

    Sue Darmody commented

    We would certainly hope that whatever is being built is in keeping with the area I.e. Not a fast food chain. As residents we would like some transparency on this

  22. In Panania NSW on “Function on other premises...” at 63 Anderson Ave, Panania, NSW 2213:

    Patrick Lebon commented

    This seems to be an administrative error.

  23. In Logan Reserve QLD on “Combined Application (RL 3...” at 298-304 Logan Reserve Road Logan Reserve QLD 4133:

    A Norton wrote to local councillor Darren Power

    I Must say we purchased in Logan Reserve for the RURAL lifestyle now we have Chitboxes going up everywhere people wonder why this days society is obese have a look no backyards to play in just jam them houses in for council to get more rates. Very dissapointed with the infastructure ( what infastructure) thats right there is none. Where is the Public Transport, now we take our lives into our own hands every day coming ut of driveways because Council has decide you beaut roundabouts are the way to go thats cool as soon as they clear these roundabouts at 120km an hour then overtake vehicles right at my driveway as i am coming out it is only a matter of time before a fatality happens ...we also have school buses that drop children off on this road ( School Road) and i asked years ago for bus signs to put in but no we get flippin animal signs the animals are more important than human lives. What was once a great area to live in is now turning to crap because of greedy councils wanting to fill the coffers at the expense of the people whom have lived in this area for years.

    D P
    Darren Power local councillor for Logan City Council
    replied to A Norton

    Dear A Norton,
    I understand your concerns, these types of developments are happening everywhere and they do effect the quality of lifestyle that residents used to have. Unfortunately I am not your local councillor, Cr Phil Pidgeon is. As a councillor of the city I am interested in your fight with this application, however you should give Cr Pidgeon a call as he may very well support your concerns and as the local councillor would carry more weight in future debate at council for this particular application. His phone number is 0411 869 109. Good luck with it.

    Regards
    Darren

    Councillor Darren Power | Councillor for Division 10 | Logan City Council
    Phone: 07 3412 5510 | PO Box 3226 Logan City DC Qld 4114
    | www.logan.qld.gov.au facebook.com/logancitycouncil | twitter.com/logancc

    Division 10 includes Carbrook, Cornubia (part of), Daisy Hill (part of) and Shailer Park
    Logan City: Building Our Communities, Our Businesses and Our Pride

  24. In Netherdale QLD on “Rural Industry (Meat...” at 6452 Mackay-Eungella Road Netherdale QLD 4756:

    Winifred Arnold commented

    I am requesting why no notification was sent to other owners in the area of this application. What is the due process in regards to this?
    This application also refers to a piggery but there was no further information included in regards to the piggery. Where can this information be sourced from?

  25. In Unley Park SA on “Demolish existing dwelling...” at 8 Heywood Avenue, Unley Park SA 5061:

    Anne Wharton wrote to local councillor Michael Rabbitt

    I agree with Peter. River Red Gums should never be removed unless they are diseased or there is a very strong reason for removal. These beautiful trees were here long before we were. It is vital that we keep as much native vegetation as possible, particularly in Unley Park. Surely the house plans can be amended so the tree can remain.

    Photo of Michael Rabbitt
    Michael Rabbitt local councillor for City of Unley
    replied to Anne Wharton

    Thank you for your email Anne.
    I was aware of the possibility that this tree could be removed and have spoken to Council's arborist and will have further discussions with him.
    Regards,
    Michael

    Michael Rabbitt
    Councillor, Unley Park Ward
    City of Unley

    Mob: 0415 71 4567
    Email:
    Web: www.michaelrabbitt.com

    On 30 Oct. 2016, at 4:04 pm, Anne Wharton <> wrote:

    I agree with Peter. River Red Gums should never be removed unless they are diseased or there is a very strong reason for removal. These beautiful trees were here long before we were. It is vital that we keep as much native vegetation as possible, particularly in Unley Park. Surely the house plans can be amended so the tree can remain.

    From Anne Wharton to local councillor Michael Rabbitt

    =========================================================================

    Anne Wharton posted this message to you on PlanningAlerts in response to the following planning application.

    Your reply, and any other response to this email, will be sent to Anne Wharton and posted on the PlanningAlerts website publicly.

    Planning Application for 8 Heywood Avenue, Unley Park SA 5061

    Description: Demolish existing dwelling and associated outbuilding including swimming pool and construct a 2 storey dwelling with garage to common boundary, above ground swimming pool and spa, decking and removal of 1 significant tree - Eucalyptus Camaldulensis (River Red Gum)

    Read more and see what others have to say here:
    https://www.planningalerts.org.au/applications/739835?utm_campaign=view-application&utm_medium=email&utm_source=councillor-notifications

    Best wishes,

    PlanningAlerts

  26. In Sydenham NSW on “To fit out and use premises...” at 9A Gleeson Avenue Sydenham NSW 2044:

    Petra Jones commented

    I support this application. The premises have been vacant for over four months. We need more vibrant cafes in this area.

  27. In Gladesville NSW on “To amend the Hunters Hill...” at 1, 1C, 1A and 1B Massey Street; 1-3 Flagstaff Street; 2,4,8,&10 Cowell Street; and part of 215 Victoria Road, Gladesville:

    Andre Shrimski commented

    I've been living in Gladesville for 10 years. I agree with many of the comments above that the wonderful thing about this area is the village atmosphere and easy convenience of living here.

    I'm concerned that increasing the max building heights is going to have a negative impact on the area, opening the doors to high density high rise living, and casting shadows across the surrounding streets. Not to mention the lack of infrastructure to support the sudden increase in population.

    I understand that Gladesville will need to become more populated over the next few years, but please can we do this in a measured, sustainable, and intelligent way, preserving the unique qualities of the area? The quick buck mentality is easy now, but if we stand up to that pressure, the long term future will be much better for the majority of local residents.

  28. In Corindi Beach NSW on “Dual Occupancy-New Free Stand.” at 4 Macdougall Street Corindi Beach NSW 2456:

    Jennifer and Len Kenna commented

    Dear Mr McGrath, We are not opposed to the proposal for a dual occupancy per se.
    We do have concerns with the development in a part of Macdougall Street which is only a strip of bitumen one car width wide. All of the traffic accessing Macdougall St including the beach access, Jabiru Way and Pipeclay Close must use this narrow piece of bitumen from Pacific St. As all of the blocks in this area are gradually being built on more and more traffic is being generated. In Pipeclay Close there are a number of multiple dwellings including one house which is used by fruitpickers who have had up to 10 vehicles. At the moment there are 2 minibuses parked there. Added to this are the numbers of semitrailers which access the area. On garbage night bins have to be placed right up adjacent to the bitumen as the sides of the road fall steeply making it impossible to do otherwise. So for one day a week and possibly more if bins are not removed promptly no vehicles can pass.
    There is no parking available adjoining this dual occupancy proposal and as stated the road falls away steeply into the drain.
    This strip of bitumen which need attention is only 64 metres long so before approval is given for this development and for the safety of everyone using this area, consideration should be given to widening this 64 metres of roadway which fronts this proposed dwelling.
    Yours Sincerely
    Jennifer and Len Kenna

  29. In Gladesville NSW on “To amend the Hunters Hill...” at 1, 1C, 1A and 1B Massey Street; 1-3 Flagstaff Street; 2,4,8,&10 Cowell Street; and part of 215 Victoria Road, Gladesville:

    Michael Gannon commented

    My major concern with the proposal and its size is the lack of infrastructure to support such a large development on top of the developments already approved. Namely:

    1. Traffic flow: with traffic already bad through Gladesville on Victoria rd at all times of the day, I would see the additional residents (the volume that is proposed) making through traffic on Victoria rd very painful. This will push "rat runners" through quiet residential streets. What does Hunters Hill Council/ the developers propose to keep traffic clear on Victoria rd while ensuring residential back streets don't pay the price for poor planning?

    2. Public transport: for a complex of this size there should be sufficient rail transport hubs such that is located at Chatswood, Epping, St Leonards and NW rail link. If you want to buil high rise, please do it where there is sufficient rail transport networks.

    3. Amenity: Insufficient green space in the proposal and a towering apartment block does not fit well with Hunters Hill/Gladesville. Please have a long hard think about what the right thing to do is for the benefit of the community (current and future) not developers.

    Kind Regards

  30. In Newtown NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 18 Enmore Road Newtown NSW 2042:

    Sinead D commented

    I support this 100% this business is an institution loved my locals and visitors alike.

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