Recent comments

  1. In Leichhardt NSW on “Use of the existing...” at 21 Hill Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Rose Gates and Sean Ferns commented

    Completely agree with the previous comment. Parking in this area is chronic and Just Screw It have consistently parked in Emma St even though they have designated parking for their vehicles in Hill Street. We know of a neighbour in Emma St who asked them if they were moving their vehicle shortly, they said no and she was forced to unload her car some distance away while attending to 2 small children, this is the attitude of some of the staff. Hill Street itself is extremely narrow, difficult to negotiate at the best of times, which is exacerbated by their trucks and trailers. They have always treated the residents with contempt.

  2. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 1A Hill Street Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    S F commented

    How can you allow a reduction in parking? There is such limited parking around the development and also in the area. Not only around the development the streets and shopping area cannot continue with the increasing number of people you are jamming in every crevice. You are ruining a once beautiful suburb with these cheap, oversized, monstrosities. I understand that the council needs to allow more units through but the cheap rubbish which is being built astounds me.

  3. In Saint Peters NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 641 King Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Sandra Elterman commented

    I reiterate my objection to this development and would like to state that I agree with all the points made by Miriam Fairhurst and D Power.
    What further steps can residents who oppose this development take?

  4. In Belmore NSW on “Demolition and construction...” at 43 Tudor Street, Belmore NSW:

    Karoline commented

    Hi
    Will this be a new daycare centre? How do we find out more information?

  5. In Saint Peters NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 641 King Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    D Power commented

    I object to this application in its current form, with a number of issues arising. Firstly Goodsell St. has always had parking issues due to its proximity to St Peters Railway Station. Over the years, we residents have fought hard to obtain Residential Parking, and even still, parking is still a major issue on weekends when the parking scheme doesn't apply. To allow a development project, that has 66 apartments, numbering 97 bedrooms, with 4 studio apartments, to only have 52 residential parking spaces, is ludicrous. Combine this with 9 visitor spaces and 17 retail/commercial spaces, my question is, where does the overflow go? I'm fairly sure Goodsell St. would be the recipient.
    I also question the Traffic Volume Assessment report, as anyone that lives in the St Peters Triangle knows that peak hours are significantly more than one hour in the Am and Pm. I personally leave for work at around 7am and traffic is already built up from Princes Hwy/ May St. intersection, all the way down past Council St. I note in their traffic assessment there has been no mention of May Ln/ May St. intersection. This small intersection is an integral point to accessing Goodsell St. Any major increase of traffic trying to turn into May Ln, will significantly affect the Princes Hwy/May St intersection. Another point that's not discussed in their report is the fact that it is a "no right turn" from May Ln into Goodsell St, thus making the access and egress to this development extremely challenging. Even to this day,we residents have to put up with drivers doing illegal right hand turns, one would be naive to think it wouldn't continue to access this property.
    To approve a development of this size would also create extensive overshadowing concerns to neighbouring properties, and from what I believe, this development exceeds Council guidelines anyway.
    I am not against development in our local area, however, in its present form, together with points raised in my submission, and due to its sheer size for such a small suburban locale, I must object strenuously.

  6. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 1A Hill Street Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    J Libro commented

    I was notified that this was taken out of Council hands and given to the State government to make final decisions. And yet another stupid decision made by the government who are trying to squash people into these rabbit holes when destroying neighbourhoods and create other problems like traffic and parking issues. I can't believe you are reducing the number of car spaces. Parking is a huge concern in the area. I also can't see how this development is of 'regional significance'??? Look at all the units that are being built next door in the Arlington. And they want more in that very small area with only little roads around them like, quiet Grove Street which will be flooded with traffic.

  7. In Riverwood NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 10 Earls Avenue, Riverwood NSW:

    Annie commented

    Grateful if City of Canterbury authorities could require adequate carspaces be built in both the tenancies. Parking on Earls Avenue has become difficult in recent years due to the addition of multiple tenancies where previously single title properties existed.

    Grateful also if City of Canterbury could require demolition and construction work be restricted to between 8am-6pm during business days, and 9-5pm on Saturdays with no construction undertaken on Sundays; to enable full and peaceful enjoyment of home by surrounding residents.

    Sincere thanks.

  8. In Kellyville NSW on “Two (2) Three storey...” at Lot 3 Dp 1208794 Withers Road, Kellyville NSW 2155:

    David Rolfe commented

    This development and the breach of the height restriction should not be approved and the lot reserved for 1 or 2 storey residential development:
    1. Claiming the breach of height restriction is required due to the sloping site is not a justification for the breach. The developer should design within the restrictions of the North Kellyville DCP, zoning, height restrictions and the plot. If this is not possible, the development should be located to a more appropriate plot.
    2. As the plot is significantly higher than the surrounding residential properties on Windon Ave, Oxlade St and Serene Pl, the increase in height will be exacerbated further and will result in several houses being overlooked from the units. This site breaches the DCP requirement that three storey developments are "not
    likely to impact adversely on the existing or future amenity of any adjoining land on which residential development is permitted, having regard to overshadowing, visual impact and any impact on privacy;"
    3. The plot is/will be surrounded on all sides by low-rise 1 to 2 storey residential housing and therefore is out of place with the streetscape.
    4. The North Kellyville DCP states that residential flat buildings should be located around the Neighbourhood Centres. This plot is not adjancent to these centres and has low rise residential buildings between it and the neighbourhood centres. It is therefore out of place with the vision and character as set out by the DCP. As there are still avaiable plots near these centres, this development should be relocated to a more suitable plot.

  9. In Richmond VIC on “Demolition, 6 new...” at 293 Church St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Ant straker wrote to local councillor Amanda Stone

    GREAT .
    Let's hope we can get to the bottom of this absurd application .
    Too many of our historic buildings are being turned into "luxury" flats .

    Delivered to local councillor Amanda Stone. They are yet to respond.

  10. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 1A Hill Street Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Kel Vance commented

    I strongly object to any reduction in parking spaces and increase in the number of units. It seems that developers are submitting proposals they know will pass with the intention of then having these proposals amended after approval. This strategy has to stop, this is extremely worrying and of great concern is that there are no voted representatives in which to lobby against this current lack of oversight and free reign that developers are getting. There is a huge amount of current developments in the area, there seems to be no forethought regarding these developments being in such close vicinity to each other. The knock on effect of continual 'cheating' the systems by putting in amendments after the fact, will be devastating to the area.

  11. In Richmond VIC on “Demolition, 6 new...” at 293 Church St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Ant straker wrote to local councillor Amanda Stone

    GREAT .
    Let's hope we can get to the bottom of this absurd application .
    Too many of our historic buildings are being turned into "luxury" flats .

    Delivered to local councillor Amanda Stone. They are yet to respond.

  12. In Warners Bay NSW on “1 into 36 lot Subdivison...” at 52 Fairfax Road, Warners Bay NSW 2282:

    Catherine Doyle commented

    To whom it may concern, I am the newest resident at The Palms, an over 55's Strata Community. I was very happy with my purchase in March 2015 as I have been able to feel safe and secure in this quiet environment.I am aware of this proposed development and I am upset by the proposal to widen Phoenix Drive, along with the road to the new development being proposed to enter/exit right across the road from my home. There would be a huge increase in local traffic and noise. The ambiance of this community would be totally lost. I feel the developers should provide their own road access on the other side of the land and also provide a fence along Phoenix Drive.to maintain our privacy and safety. I truly hope that Lake Macquarie Council will decline this application in it's current state. We need to preserve the happiness of our older generation. I look forward to your response. Thank you.

  13. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 1A Hill Street Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Lara N commented

    This appears to be a standard developer strategy. Submit the DA, gain approval and later amend to greater density/lower amenity. Surely the Councillors in Pittwater et al (not Marrickville, Canterbury or Ashfield) who, it would appear, are now representing our interests are well experienced in these matters and will dismiss this spurious application.
    For reference, here is the list of representatives on the sparkling new "East Sydney Joint Regional Planning Panel". Myself, friends and neighbours have no idea how it was formed, when it was formed nor that it represented development matters in relation to the inner west. No donations or gifts. Not a council employee.
    http://www.jrpp.nsw.gov.au/PanelRegions/CouncilMembers/tabid/84/language/en-US/Default.aspx

  14. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 1A Hill Street Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Wendy Peddell commented

    I object to the proposed increase in number of units, reduction in parking spaces and modification to setback.

    Aside from the perennial issue of limited street parking locally (and increasingly so with other developments), there is a worrying trend towards "after thought" amendments that I believe sets a precedent to allow similar changes to original approvals. The cumulative effect - not only for Dulwich Hill but surrounding suburbs - could be something far different than even planning authorities envisaged.

    Moreover, in the absence of elected representation on local councils - Dulwich Hill and surrounding suburbs - I am concerned there will be a lack of adequate council oversight and also a perceived window of opportunity for developers with similar "after thoughts" to slip through the net.

  15. In Saint Peters NSW on “To demolish the existing...” at 641 King Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Miriam Fairhurst commented

    I object to this DA being approved for all of the reasons below. Whether or not any of the issues can be addressed, the proposed building is too big and too high for the site and the neighbourhood and will unacceptably cast the houses at 4 & 6 Goodsell Street into shadow, and unacceptably increase noise, traffic and parking difficulties on Goodsell Street and the neighbouring one way streets of Council Street, May Lane and Lord Street.

    Eight storey and 66 units with 88 car spaces is high density in a medium density area.

    All in all this DA underestimates the impact on the community of Goodsell Street and the surrounding streets that will bear the impact of this building. Although it will carry a King Street address all entry and exit, deliveries and rubbish collections will be on Goodsell Street - with the majority of entrance and exit from the area via May Lane (a shared zone with many pedestrians) and Council Street, a tiny one way street. It fails to address serious flaws in its content.

    Some issues are:

    1) There are heavy metal contaminants and asbestos onsite – see pages 21-27 of Preliminary Site Investigation. There is a risk of airborne exposure to humans and a risk of contaminating the ground water. The report recommends further assessments and if demolition of the site is approved it needs to be supervised and stop work when contaminants are observed. This is an unacceptable risk to residents, commuters and attendees at Sydney Park.

    2) The Geotechnical Report is for 7 storeys high and 2 storeys deep NOT 8 storeys high and 3 storeys deep. This is not what the DA is for and as such is useless. It notes that there is an amendment for the further basement and states “further investigations will be required at founding level in order to confirm the underlying geology”. Nothing is said about the proposed 8th storey in the report. There is also within the DA the suggestion that the original proposal was for a building 12 storeys high - can council guarantee that an amendment to increase the height will not be granted if this DA for 8 storeys is approved?

    3) Parking and traffic: the Traffic and Parking Impact Assessment wrongly states at 2.3 that parking on Goodsell Street is not time restricted - it is 2 hour parking (residents hold parking permits) and is usually parked out especially on weekends. It underestimates available parking on Goodsell Street by stating “there are a reasonable number of vacant car spaces on Goodsell Street” (page 18). The report underestimates the impact of 80 more cars traveling on Goodsell Street, Council Street and May Lane. It ignores increased traffic on Lord Street. It underestimates the impact of the noise pollution of extra rubbish trucks both private and council-run that make noise and flash lights from 3am onwards.

    4) Unacceptable overshadowing: Houses at 4 & 6 Goodsell Street will be overshadowed all morning until at least 11am during winter. That is essentially all of the morning sun in winter blocked out. Sydney Park will be overshadowed from 3pm onwards. (Site Plan Survey Architecturals Shadow Landscape Stormwater – last two pages). I also question whether the shadow drawing is accurate - if it is not then 4 & 6 Goodsell Street could be robbed of all of their morning sun - these houses currently receive direct morning sunlight and that will be blocked. Presumably it will cast longer shadows in summer - the shadow pictures are deficient in setting out exactly how much the neighbourhood will be overshadowed.

    5) It will block iconic views of the Brickwork Chimneys from a number of angles (see “Photomontage” document) which is unfair to residents who cherish that view.

    6) Incentives to Council. We have no elected council but it still offers whoever is holding power to:

    a) lease council a “ground floor meeting room” of approximately 40sqm with toilet facilities and 1 car parking space (Leased Area) for a term of 5 years at a rent of $1per annum plus out-goings in full, with an estimated net present value of $60,612 (Lease) or an equivalent monetary contribution for public facilities and services, at the election of Council;

    b) will contribute $1,193,218 (as indexed in accordance with clause 2.15 of Marrickville Section 94/94A Contributions Plan 2014) for the purposes of the provision of public infrastructure specified in the Marrickville Section 94/94A Contributions Plan 2014 (Monetary Contribution). See Voluntary Planing Agreement – DA201600179 .

    The second item may not be a voluntary payment but it is still a considerable amount of money that could incentivise the council to approve it.

    7) This proposed building is too big and too high for the site and the neighbourhood. It will cause increased traffic and parking issues on Goodsell Street, Council Street, May Lane and Lord Street. It is an ugly block that warehouses people in tiny units for no purpose but to maximise profit for the developers. It would be a blight on the neighbourhood and unacceptably overshadows 4 & 6 Goodsell Street and Sydney Park.

  16. In Richmond VIC on “Demolition, 6 new...” at 293 Church St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Gary Shadforth wrote to local councillor Amanda Stone

    Amanda - The report is sourced from Yarra City Council - PLN16/0509.
    Are you able to clear this up? It surely can't be allowed to happen and doesn't appear on the advertised listings.

    Photo of Amanda Stone
    Amanda Stone local councillor for Yarra City Council
    replied to Gary Shadforth

    I'll look into it on Tuesday. It could be related to a non-heritage building at the back.

    Langridge Ward Councillor
    Yarra City Council
    0429 358 170

    from my iPhone
    DISCLAIMER: The information in this electronic mail is confidential and may contain personal or health information. It is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, copying or use of the information is strictly prohibited. If
    you have received this transmission in error, please delete it immediately from your system and inform us by e-mail to

    Council does not guarantee the integrity of the information in this electronic mail or any attached files, or warrant or represent the information as being free from errors or omission. Any recipient who relies upon the information does so at their own risk, and Council will not be liable for any loss or damage caused as a result of such reliance. If a recipient wishes to act on the information provided, he or she should seek advice from Council in person before doing so.

    Please consider the environment before printing this email.

  17. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 1A Hill Street Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Lynne Foreman commented

    Polite, clear and to the point. Do you the Planning Authority read any of the comments that are sent your way? It would appear not as the content in each comment is very similar. Parking is a huge issue in Dulwich Hill. Overdevelopment with poor design is denigrating the living standards of those who reside here. We want quality not quantity, and in particular the ability to park and drive around our suburb. The question below further enhances my concern and my answer is no I have not and never will make a donation or gift to a Councillor or Council employee.

  18. In Kellyville NSW on “Two (2) Three storey...” at Lot 3 Dp 1208794 Withers Road, Kellyville NSW 2155:

    Shawgi Sukumaran commented

    This proposal exceeds the maximum height prescribed. It will also block light to nearby properties. Privacy of nearby residence is also of concern. Street character is also of concern

    Shawgi Sukumaan

  19. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 1A Hill Street Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Sophie T commented

    I also object to the increase in units and the reduction in car spaces. Parking is a real issue in and around this development. Why wasn't this included in the original DA? Surely the developer always knew this. It makes a mockery of the approval process for these larger developments that are dominating Dulwich Hill and a lot of other communities in and around here.

  20. In Dulwich Hill NSW on “Under Section 96 of the...” at 1A Hill Street Dulwich Hill NSW 2203:

    Glenda Pontes commented

    I object to the reduction of cars paces and increase of residences.
    Parking is already a problem in nearby streets and around the suburb.
    Additional residences should mean increased parking spaces, not the opposite.

  21. In Leichhardt NSW on “Use of the existing...” at 21 Hill Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Neill Francis commented

    No this area is completely unsuitable for this site. These people are very poor corporate citizens. They park their work vehicles on the footparth, leaving little room for pedestrians who are often forced to walk on the street. They cover the street with rubbish. They leave trailer loads of rubbish in the street, often uncovered, some of which appears to be asbestos. They really need to learn a bit of corporate social responsibility (CSR, also called corporate conscience, corporate citizenship or responsible business), which is a form of corporate self-regulation integrated into a business model. They also use a yard opposite to their business, as a storage yard. This yard is in a residential area. They treat their neighbours with absolute contempt.

  22. In Granville NSW on “65 - 71 Cowper Street (cnr...” at 65 Cowper Street Granville NSW 2142:

    Sarah skinner commented

    I am deeply concerned with the addition of an extra 25 apartments. Are not more parking spaces then also required? Isn't this development already under construction and if so how can extra parking be accommodated? The area is already so terribly congested and I don't believe this is sustainable in our area esp as there is no parking in the surrounding streets. The intersection and surrounding streets are a major thoroughfare for peak hour travellers. Travelling time in the area has already doubled in just the last year.
    This seems like an exorbitant number to compress into what was already a large number of spaces for the sized construction.

  23. In Richmond VIC on “Demolition, 6 new...” at 293 Church St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Ant Straker wrote to local councillor Amanda Stone

    What the !!!!!!
    Your joking , this cannot be allowed to happen .
    Another icon to disappear .
    Get the press in on it !

    Photo of Amanda Stone
    Amanda Stone local councillor for Yarra City Council
    replied to Ant Straker

    This property is on the Victoria Heritage Register as well as the Yarra heritage database:

    http://vhd.heritage.vic.gov.au/local/search/yarra?page=1&search_type=local&type=user

    It's most unlikely it would be demolished. It would be worth checking the veracity of this report.

  24. In Jamberoo NSW on “Dwelling with secondary...” at 11 O'Mara Pl, Jamberoo, NSW 2533:

    Mr S & Mrs V Baker commented

    We are concerned about the dense housing in O'Mara Place. As we are nearby residents it would have been appropriate and polite to provide us all with details of all the house structures. We have not received and notifications of any of them. 11 O'Mara Place is the first one. They have all impacted on our views and completely ruined the area. St Matthews Church has been engulfed with ugly building providing no privacy for worship and other occasions. There is one house at the end of Downes place with a wooden fence around a scout hall blue structure and it is an eyesore. What once was a beautiful view has now been destroyed.
    The density of the housing is exactly like Albion Park, not like Jamberoo Valley. We object to and further houses especially of a two storey nature being built.
    The community has saved the Kiama Councils jobs, it is up to Kiama Council to save the integrity of the Village and Valley. Thank you.

  25. In Sharon QLD on “Two into Five Lots” at 4 Workmans Rd, Sharon, QLD, Australia:

    ginger gordy commented

    i've recently moved to Sharon. it would amaze me if the local planning authorities don't already have regulations against any new building in areas known for flooding risks, as climatologists warn us that these flooding events will increase in frequency and severity. if this development is approved, it would be negligent to the community (the cost of unnecessary emergency services) and all our insurance premiums (bigger payouts for flood damaged properties will raise all premiums), and would be especially damaging to people who might buy the new properties without understanding the flood damage they will likely incur in the future.

  26. In Sharon QLD on “Two into Five Lots” at 4 Workmans Rd, Sharon, QLD, Australia:

    ginger gordy wrote to local councillor Judith Peters

    i've recently moved to Sharon. it would amaze me if the local planning authorities don't already have regulations against any new building in areas known for flooding risks, as climatologists warn us that these flooding events will increase in frequency and severity. if this development is approved, it would be negligent to the community (the cost of unnecessary emergency services) and all our insurance premiums (bigger payouts for flood damaged properties will raise all premiums), and would be especially damaging to people who might buy the new properties without understanding the flood damage they will likely incur in the future.

    Delivered to local councillor Judith Peters. They are yet to respond.

  27. In Richmond VIC on “Demolition, 6 new...” at 293 Church St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Dolly LEROPOULOS commented

    Is this application a joke ? Surely there is Heritage Listing on this property ?

  28. In Mount Hawthorn WA on “Proposed Change of Use from...” at 211 Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn, WA, 6016:

    Maree Pickens wrote to local councillor John Carey

    44 against vs 0 in favour and I want to make it 45 - we, the Mount Hawthorn community, do not want or need another carwash, we want to make the area safer for our children at the daycare and local primary school and we need to foster a more vibrant, family friendly hub at this end of Scarborough Beach Rd. We value the opportunity to comment and we trust you will hear our concerns and reject this application to change the use of this site. Keep the site as an Eating House and welcome a business that opens its doors to the walkers, bike riders and families who want to support enterprises that strengthen the bonds of our community.

    Delivered to local councillor John Carey. They are yet to respond.

  29. In Kew VIC on “Development of the land for...” at 15 Park Lane Kew VIC 3101:

    T. Nottle commented

    A three storey, 10 apartment development in Park Lane, Kew will have a significant negative environmental and social impact on the area.

    The scale of the development does not respond to the predominantly single or double storey dwellings in the area, and is incompatible with the area's character and amenity. Park Lane is too small to support the potential number of residents living at the development: the Lane is only one-vehicle wide and must be shared with pedestrians, and is adjacent to the publicly enjoyed Kellet Reserve. The current waste management system of wheeling bins out to Fitzwilliam Street currently overcrowds the footpath and litters Kellet Reserve and the footpath every Friday morning. An increase of potentially 20 bins lined along Fitzwilliam Street is unsustainable and unsightly.

    The increased vehicular traffic will also compromise sustainable modes of transportation, increase noise and air pollution, and most importantly, pose huge safety risks: children walk, cycle, and scoot to school along Park Lane and the surrounding streets, children play near and in (the unfenced) Kellet Reserve.

    It is obvious that such a huge development would be completely inappropriate for this area and contrary to Boroondara's Residential Design Policy.

  30. In Mount Hawthorn WA on “Proposed Change of Use from...” at 211 Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn, WA, 6016:

    Sally Wright wrote to local councillor Emma Michelle Cole

    I am very concerned about the location near the primary school. The area is very congested and parking is limited. Also there are many other car wash locations . At least 3 along between the school and Innaloo , 1 at dog swap , 1
    On Cnr Charles and Angove and snother on Charles St. There is no need for another facilty.

    Photo of Emma Michelle Cole
    Emma Michelle Cole local councillor for Vincent City Council
    replied to Sally Wright

    Hi Sally

    Thank you for your email. There has been a very strong community response on planning alerts to this planning application, particularly in relation to traffic impacts, parking and proximity to the Mulberry Tree daycare centre and MHPS. I also take your point on the number of car washes in the vicinity. There has been a rush of car wash applications in the last year, many of which have not been supported by Council due to location and traffic impacts.

    I asked City of Vincent Development Services Director Gabriela Poezyn about the timeframe for this to come to Council. It has been delayed due to the lack of a management plan. It is now expected to go to the August Council meeting. This will mean the agenda is available on the City’s website by Thursday 11 August:
    http://www.vincent.wa.gov.au/Your_Council/Agenda_Minutes

    It will be discussed (questions and answer format) at the Council Briefing on Tuesday 16 August (6p.m. start with public question time first up) and then determined at the Council meeting of Tuesday 23 August (also an opportunity to speak during public question time after the meeting opens at 6p.m.).

    Please don’t hesitate to call me to discuss the agenda item once released. I am starting back at my “other job” on Thurs 11 and Fri 12 August so probably best to talk over the following weekend or Monday 15 or Tues 16 August. Prior to that time, I am happy to have a general discussion, but won’t have access to the details or Officer Recommendation until the agenda is released.

    I hope you've been having a great time on the school holidays and a nice break from work.

    Best regards,
    Emma

    Emma Cole
    Councillor- North Ward
    City of Vincent 

    Phone: 0407 427 588
    Fax: (08) 9273 6099
    www.vincent.wa.gov.au

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