Recent comments

  1. In Surry Hills NSW on “Footway application in...” at 412-416 Crown Street Surry Hills NSW 2010:

    Tim commented

    The bouncers at the dolphin hotel think they already own the street was walking past one night not even attending the hotel and stopped to answer a call only to be pushed onto the road as i was in the way of some ten metre rule.
    The hotel already occupies enough of the foot path with it customers pouring out onto the streets.
    It is difficult enough to walk down the street as it is without having to dodge tables and chairs
    I think this proposal should not go ahead

  2. In East Toowoomba QLD on “Combined MCU and OWS...” at 1 Cohoe Street East Toowoomba QLD 4350:

    James and Judith Clanchy commented

    JL & JM Clanchy
    PO Box 3097
    Toowoomba Village Fair. 4350

    2nd October 2012

    Assessment Manager
    Toowoomba Regional Council
    PO Box 3021
    Toowoomba Village Fair. 4350

    To Whom It May Concern

    Re: MCUI/2012/3127 – Combined MCU and OWS Supermarket Food Outlet and Pole Sign
    OWS/2012/3134 – Combined MCU and OWS Supermarket Food Outlet and Pole Sign

    We would like to make a submission in respect of the abovementioned development application.

    This application does not appear to be at all consistent with the intent of the area. The proposed use does not comply with the identified outcomes required of the code and the residential zoning in place.

    The nature of the proposed development will have a major impact on many aspects of the amenity and environs of this residential area.

    The intersection where the proposed development will be sited is already a congested traffic zone at different times throughout the day, particularly, during the working week. It is the designated route taken by Greyhound buses and other coach services, many daily commuters and the likes of tradespeople and freight couriers. Further development, subsequently encouraging a much higher volume of traffic, would exacerbate this situation to the extreme and back up traffic to the west along Herries Street further. It would impede appreciably upon the through traffic on Herries Street moving to enter Cohoe Street. This would increase noise and pollution and diminish safety for the general travelling public. It would also encumber residents who walk this section and increase risks when traversing this area.

    This would significantly impact the roadways, intersections and private driveways from the Warrego Highway entry to Cohoe and Margaret Streets, right along the Cohoe to James Street section and westerly back through the roundabout at Herries/Curzon Street. This top section and major entry and exit point to our city is often under excessive pressure whenever there is a traffic mishap on the range or somewhere in the near proximity because of the nature of it being a major artery in and out.

    The area around St. Vincent’s Hospital and the Scott Street Medical Precinct is heavily saturated with vehicles looking for parking now. Consequently, this means that there is haphazard vehicle movement and congestion already present in these adjoining environs. All of this impacts upon the residential dwellings and residents within the area.

    We also feel that the existing businesses within this vicinity would also be impacted at a time when retail and hospitality are already under pressure. We would not like to see small local businesses suffer further and possibly lost due to larger national chains being imposed on our neighbourhood.
    Such businesses as the independent service station at the top of the range, the coffee shops at Medici Medical and the Range Shopping Centre and other eating establishments at the Range could be severely impacted. This would decrease the amenity and character of our neighbourhood and community.

    The fact that homes of character and our tree lined streetscape could be replaced by concrete carparks and commercial buildings operating extended trading hours would detract significantly from the local character of the area and one of the more pleasant aspects of welcoming visitors to our city.

    It is our belief that the residents of our area are not apt to value or support this proposed development. Canvassing which has been done in the neighbourhood would seem to further support this. People fear the many risks to lifestyle, community and harmonious living which may come about as a result of such a development in this particular location. I believe Council will also be in receipt of a petition to this end.

    Yours faithfully

    Jim and Judy Clanchy

    18 Fletcher Street
    East Toowoomba. 4350

  3. In Caringbah NSW on “Child Care Centre...” at 105 Cawarra Rd Caringbah 2229:

    Oliver commented

    Based on current traffic condition, would it be even worse if the Child Care Centre approved? Need a traffic study for this road.

    We have 3-4 chid care centres already in the local area, why we create another big childcare centre ?

  4. In Northbridge WA on “Shop Fitout - Maya Masala...” at 283-291 William Street:

    John Smith commented

    Application should not be approved.

    Maya Masala's owner is not an ethical business man.

    He has taken money from international students with the hope that he will provide them permanent residency. This money is now being used to develop this store.

    He does not pay his staff correctly and many staff still have unpaid superannuation and taxes.

    Bob in the past and currently is in legal battles with ATO and former business partners and Landlords from doing the wrong thing.

    It is disgusting how a man like this is still able to operate. Maya Masala is a detriment to 'upcoming' Northbridge.

    Regards.

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

    Elizabeth & Robert Briant commented

    We were very alarmed to hear about the proposed re-development to 17 Helsal Drive Wantirna South, as residents we also do not want an increase to heavy traffic such as trucks etc that would be required . The value of our property would also be lowered if these six two story MacMansions are allowed to be erected, you only have to look on the corner of Helsal Drive to see the type of ugly huge house on a tiny block
    that was built recently and how that house often has four cars parked on the street, close to corner and causing a traffic hazard

  6. In Canterbury VIC on “Construction of two...” at 9 Maling Road Canterbury VIC 3126:

    Joanne Marchese commented

    I am objecting to this development also at 9 Maling Road, as it consumes the entire block and dominates the houses either side and be visually imposing from the front street view. The reason as to why people move to these areas is for the historic housing, variety and greening of the streets - not the suburban banality that this type of design provides.

  7. In East Maitland NSW on “ALDI Greenhills - Change...” at 18-20 Garnett Rd, East Maitland 2323:

    john may commented

    I am totally opposed to Aldi allowing the sale of alcohol. They already employ young staff that will be intimidated by other teenagers when buying alcohol. They will then take it across the road to the Park (200m away) near the Council Library and drink themselves into a stupour. This places more pressure on neighbours, police and ratepayers to repair the damage that they do. The park equipment was burnt to the ground 6 months ago and alcohol will only make more youth visit the park at night.

    A a Social and economic report been undertaken adequately ? and I mean have they inetrviewed the residents nearby and do they have police and council records of destruction to property in that area, and can we compare that to other areas such as Rutherford shopping centre that has been the centre of youth crime since 2 alcohol shops opened up there ?

    If Aldi is given approval they should be paying an annual bond that can be used for removal of grafitti and contribute to public proeprty damage. A bond of $5000 a year should be imposed.

    Police should also be attending Aldi stores undercover and buy alcohol to see if they are asked for identity.

    The argument that the alcohol is not cold doesnt deter them as kids will mix it with coke that they buy elsewhere that is cold. Packaged alcohol also may reduce some buying but pooling of funds will take place and kids will be forced to buy in bulk.

    The Assessing Officer should be held responsible for any approval.
    regards

  8. In Canterbury VIC on “Construction of two...” at 9 Maling Road Canterbury VIC 3126:

    Sophie Williams commented

    I am objecting to this development because:

    The visual bulk and height is not in keeping with the Maling Rd Precinct and will impact the amenity of the area.

    The second story is not set back in keeping with other 2 storey houses in the area.

  9. In Invermay TAS on “(varying building envelope,...” at 34 Holbrook Street Invermay TAS 7248:

    Christopher Jones commented

    Chris Jones c/- C & B Super Fund owner of 30-32 Holbrook Street Invermay.

    I am writing concerning the proposed garage by Mr B Kurth at 34 Holbrook Street.

    I have no problem with the building, but I am concerned with the shadow the 9 metre x 5.5mt

    high boundary wall will cast during winter months. The 1.8mt high fence we have at the moment

    casts a shadow almost one third of the block mid winter, so I would think the 5.5 metre wall

    would almost cover the entire width of the block for 9 metres and the carport at 2.7metre high

    would shadow around half the block for another 8 metres? I would like the council to have a

    look at this and advise me of their thoughts. I know it's only a car park for 30 Holbrook Street at

    the moment, but that may change in the future, it may not always be so. A back yard with so

    much shade?

    I await your reply,

    regards,

    Chris Jones for C & B Super Fund.

  10. In West Launceston TAS on “Subdivision - subdivide...” at 17 Alfred Street West Launceston TAS 7250:

    Pam Dobson commented

    I dont think this application should be approved unless parking bays are made in Alfred Street similar to those in Wilhelmina Avenue. The nature strip is quite wide enough to facilitate
    several parking bays.

    With approval of this subdivison and the increase in traffic it will create, an already
    congested and very narrow street will become even worse.

    Parking bays should be part of the developement.

  11. 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.

  12. 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

  13. 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.

  14. 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

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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

  24. 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

  25. 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

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

    Simone commented

    this is still a test

  27. 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.

  28. 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

  29. 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

  30. 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

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