Recent comments

  1. In Wonga Park VIC on “Subdivisions, variations to...” at Lot 3 Holloway Road, Wonga Park VIC 3115:

    Janet commented

    I am concerned that the native bush land that is unique to this area will be lost forever. The significant noise that will occur due to the increased traffic flow, noise pollution is already a big issue by having through roads this is will only create a bigger issue with our world. This move would show little respect for indigenous and cultural importance that we have in this area. This decision would deplicate the housing development that has taken place on the corner of Kimberly Drive and Deep Springs Road is an indication of the added traffic conjestion this has prove to become disastrous. Once this environment is lost, it is never to be regained.

  2. In Umina Beach NSW on “Swimming Pool In-ground” at 19 Australia Avenue, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    When the pool is finished and the owners are considering landscaping, can they think about some shade trees? There are plenty to choose from that don't get too big and are not shedding leaves into the pool filter.

  3. In Umina Beach NSW on “Construction of a Permanent...” at 17 Osborne Avenue, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    Can the developers retain the trees at the front of this block? The new residents would greatly appreciate some greenery and shade when they move in. I expect all the bedrooms will be on the west side?
    All too often, contractors clear-fell everything on blocks, but can they work around these trees?
    When the job is finished, can the landscaping include some shade, not just quick to buy/plant magonlia graniflora (an under-storey Chinese rainforest tree and not suited to our dry, hot sand plain) but callestemon, tuckeroo, apple gum or even a crepe myrtle - none of which will get too big.

  4. In Moorebank NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 1 Malinya Crescent Moorebank NSW 2170:

    Hans Zecevic commented

    Hi to all,. I would cordially request that an appropriate party review the suitability of the location with respect to traffic flow at this particular corner. It is difficult enough with current traffic conditions as is, without the impact by the Moorebank Intermodal.

    Please do not approve this property for business activities that would further negatively impact traffic conditions.

  5. In Newtown VIC on “Partial Use and Development...” at 400-404 Pakington Street, Newtown, VIC:

    Greg Citizen commented

    Kudos to the investor with this. CoGG had the foresight to rezone this area for mixed use many years ago and only recently are investors seeing this amazing areas potential and location.

  6. In Saint Peters NSW on “Boarding House” at 96 May Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Joe Levitt commented

    This must be stopped until it can be properly assessed and there are no details on what exactly is being planned. Something smells very fishy here.

  7. In Moorebank NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 1 Malinya Crescent Moorebank NSW 2170:

    JS commented

    Pretty sure this property is already being used as a medical facility and has been for some months. Having driven passed and seeing what I would assume was a patient getting dressed and the blinds were open, the look on their face when they realised their privacy had been compromised was quite sad. They looked mortified as they grabbed for their clothing. Very unprofessional of the facility.

    As numerous cars are always outside this house we are pretty sure it has been running for some time. What worries me is the rubbish issue. This property always has rubbish bins completely full and overflowing and I worry about the clinical waste that may be in these bins. How is one allowed to have clinical waste in their house hold garbage bin if this is what it is? The bins are out the front of the property so it is a worry that contaminated waste may be going in them. The property already looks over run and unkept and if it is to be used as a business it should reflect a professional outfit. Also I have driven into the street and had a car do a u-turn straight infront of me as it is the first house in the street. Extremely dnagerous. These are definitely concerns that should be addressed and governed if this is to continue and go ahead. Not happy about this development in a residential street. It should be in a more appropriate area.

  8. In Brunswick VIC on “Demolition of the existing...” at 22 Black Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Claire Plummer commented

    Dear Planning Authority,

    The two questions I would’ve asked had I been able to attend the council meeting last week:

    1) What is the process for which developers can ignore the height control?

    2) Is Moreland Council committed to the height control rule?

    Are you able to please advise?


  9. In Brunswick VIC on “Demolition of the existing...” at 22 Black Street, Brunswick VIC 3056:

    Claire Plummer wrote to local councillor Mark Riley

    Dear Mark,

    The two questions I would’ve asked had I been able to attend the meeting:

    1) What is the process for which developers can ignore the height control?

    2) Is Moreland Council committed to the height control rule?

    Are you able please advise?


    Photo of Mark Riley
    Mark Riley local councillor for Moreland City Council
    replied to Claire Plummer

    Dear Claire,

    Thanks for your email. I will ask Officers to formally respond to your two questions, as I am a Councillor, and can respond from that perspective but given urban planning is quite complex and detailed, I'd like to ensure you get an authoritative professional response too.

    My responses to your two queries are below:

    1) What is the process for which developers can ignore the height control?

    Moreland City Council has sought, more than once, to have the Vic Planning Minister to approve height limits, but the Minister has not approved these, thus the preferred heights are the guide to developers and Planning Officers.

    Many developers/proponents do often seek to build something beyond the preferred heights. In some cases officers, under delegation may approve an application above the preferred heights, but usually refer these to the PARM - Planning and Related Matters Committee of MCC. This gives Councillors the role of deciding, with officer advice, on the application.

    I cannot say for certain, but the pattern has been, in the past two years of my time as a Councillor, that the PARM may approve a proposal above the preferred heights, but only when the other features of the development have high standards and outcomes. These may include aspects such as, high Environmental Sustainable Design (ESD) proivisions (high thermal ratings, solar passive design, water capture use/re-use, accessibility and visitiabliity, internal amenity and so on ...)

    Without specific height limits, we are not able to maintain an absolute height in any of our planning zones.

    2) Is Moreland Council committed to the height control rule?

    Re the street width and street wall height, when one stands on the street opposite the proposed building, one should not necessarily be able to see the top of the building, only the 3 or 4th level (referred to as the street wall height). There are other technical terms and principles that come into play but these are some of the major/common features that are considered by Planners when they assess proposals under Victoria's Planning system.

    I refer to this type of system, the Vic planning system, as a 'post modern' system. That is, there very few absolutes in the scheme, and hundreds of variables which can be adjusted and moved depending upon the other variables proposed.

    I hope the officers can explain this better than my attempts above Claire.

    Finally, just to alert you to the fact that, Moreland City Council does not rely upon the Planning Alerts system to communicate with our residents, as it is controlled by a third party. I would encourage you to use Council's online, public tools and access points. These are on the MCC website.

    Thanks for taking the time to get in touch.

    Yours sincerely,

    Cr Mark Riley
    South Ward I Moreland City Council
    90 Bell Street, Coburg. 3058
    m: +61 499 807 044

    To make a report, complaint or request for a service to Moreland City Council Go To >

  10. In Wonga Park VIC on “Subdivisions, variations to...” at Lot 3 Holloway Road, Wonga Park VIC 3115:

    Kerrie commented

    I’m confused as to how this has even made it through the first stage. The lack of consideration and planning for the significant impact this will have to local traffic is mind blowing. A small estate backing on to a growing school, already in desperate need of improved conditions to reduce traffic congestion will now be used as the sole thoroughfare to 48 more houses? I assume the person responsible for approving this has never driven these streets and experienced the issues themselves - only someone not local to the area would have ever thought this could work.

  11. In Naremburn NSW on “Request to remove two...” at 163 Willoughby Road Naremburn NSW 2065.:

    Amanda Smith commented

    Please stop chopping down the trees. Our suburbs are being turned into concrete jungles. Trees are life.

  12. In Rosanna VIC on “Construction of six (6)...” at 28 Millicent Street , Rosanna, VIC:

    Leo R commented

    Agree with all the comments above and would have further to add.

    The new train station in Rosanna has become a hub station and has drawn additional traffic and cars parked for extended periods.

    This includes streets like Millicent and other streets within a short walking distance to Rosanna train station.

    Approving an application for six units on one block with now allowance for parking is simply exacerbating the problem.

    What used to be a relatively safe, quiet, leafy area with good schools – has become a scourge of rampant unchecked development – increasing pressure on existing roads and parking, and making our local roads even more unsafe than they already are.

  13. In Saint Peters NSW on “Boarding House” at 96 May Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Silvia Levame commented

    Although I do not live in the area, I find 'amusing' that Council issues 'information' about a DA for a boarding house without providing any details. Is Council taking its ratepayers for a ride? Has the decision been already made and this invitation to comment is something to fulfill the formalities and keep people's mouths shut?

    I find this lack of information offensive to our intelligence and I demand information about number of bedrooms, bathrooms, parking spots, etc, meaning, the basic information that should have been provided in the first instance.

  14. In Rosanna VIC on “Construction of six (6)...” at 28 Millicent Street , Rosanna, VIC:

    Pamela Marlene McDonald (Pam) commented

    I am long-time owner-occupier and ratepayer in Millicent Street and am writing to record my strong objection to the proposed development at 28 Millicent Street.

    Millicent Street was originally built as a narrow residential road (initially unmade) but is now used continuously as a cut-through between Rosanna Road and Lower Plenty Road by a large number of vehicles each day ( not helped by the fact that Douglas Street off Rosanna Road was closed by the Council some time ago at the behest of residents of that street). The road was never intended to accommodate the volume of traffic to which it is subjected now.

    The road is often so congested now with cars parked on both sides of the street that there is barely enough room to pass through when there is a succession of vehicles coming from opposite directions. This is particularly the case when there is a social occasion at on of the units.

    The proposal to erect six units on a lot which is no bigger than any other in the street with no on-site parking for visitors would lead to a further substantial increase in crowding of the street by parked cars by residents with more than one vehicle, visitors to those residents as well as daily commuters and residents of Lower Plenty and Rosanna Roads).

    Six units is far too many for the size of the lots, which are really only suitable for three units at the maximum. A lack of adequate on-site parking will compound the problem. Many times I have had to divert to the wrong side of the road in order to gain access to our driveway because of parked cars impeding the opposite side of the road.

    There have been occasions when a larger vehicle has used the street but has been unable to pass because of removal or delivery vehicles parked on one side of the road and a car parked on the opposite side. Even emergency vehicles (ambulances) have had difficulty in getting through because the space available is too narrow.

  15. In Woolgoolga NSW on “Dwelling-Alteration -...” at 61 Newmans Road Woolgoolga NSW 2456:

    Robert Buckley commented

    I find it hard to understand how a person applying for a DA approval as I speak now working on this conversion of a garage into two bedrooms, until the approval has been passed, there is more consideration needed by council regarding other residents rights, privacy, noise, and more concerning the premises allowing for off street parking, besides the proper construction regulations (BCA) for a liveable area all these maters come into consideration, given the fact the owner has taken two car parking areas already by illegally converting the garages into bedrooms, leaving possibly perhaps two vehicles space on the property, the other area in behind the building line must comply with building requirements regarding landscaping ect,

    Fact is when the picking season is in full swing we then get as many as 12 people possibly more renting beds, this has the effect of an overload of parking putting strain on a very busy road and effectively causing problems with other neighbors with the parking and other complaints regarding noise, privacy, and lighting issues

    I have been in the building industry all of my working life and held a full license, if I were to have ignored the regulations, arrogantly just do as I pleases disregarding the council and the building code of Australia, I would have had the council stop my project immediately and would had received a heavy fine along with a possible suspension of my license.

    So one would have to ask why this owner has been allowed to continue without any consequences, does he have friends in council or a special license that can override all the relevant authorities, why is he now still working on the project at this moment without any concern from council

  16. In Sandstone Point QLD on “Request to Change (Other) -...” at 1780-1820 Bribie Island Road, Sandstone Point QLD 4511:

    Cherie Porter commented

    Hi everyone,

    Today is your last day to submit an objection to the local council to this Change of use.

    I have done so. This must not be approved until the roads are fixed and the noise levels are adhered to.

    Let's stand up and be heard.

  17. In Armadale VIC on “The purpose of this...” at 929-931 and 933 High Street, Armadale VIC 3143:

    Marie Watt commented

    As nearby residents we object to the inappropriate density of this planned development. Six stories is far too high, and ensures a further diminishing of the heritage streetscape which is - or used to be - so precious in this area. Stonnington Council appears to continually agree to developers' requests for reduced car parking requirements within a development, and given the scarcity of parking spots in both shopping areas and surrounding residential streets in Armadale, we have to again ask WHY this dispensation?

  18. In Bellbird Park QLD on “Superseded Planning Scheme...” at 123 Johnston Street Bellbird Park QLD 4300:

    Megan commented

    After reviewing the previous version of the Ipswich Planning Scheme (the version in place when the development application for 123 Johnston St was submitted) and the current superseded planing request, it is evident this application must be rejected as it does not comply with requirements for an auxiliary unit.

    Prior to October 2018 the Ipswich Planing Scheme provided auxiliary unit requirements in the supplementary document, Implementation Guide No. 1. Page 1 of this document provides the following definition (provided here word for word);

    '“Auxiliary Unit” means a building or part of a building used as a secondary residence not exceeding 50m² gross floor area with a maximum of one bedroom which is attached to or associated with a dwelling on the same lot.'

    This superseded planing request has provided a floor plan (supporting information) showing a total auxiliary unit gross floor area of 73.1m2 ('living' floor area = 52.6m2; 'garage' floor area = 21.5m2). As both the total and 'living' floor areas exceed the allowable gross floor area for an auxiliary unit, this part of the building IS NOT an auxiliary unit. As such, this application cannot be approved.

    I must point out that 123 Johnston St is located within a residential area that is already highly populated (overpopulate) with auxiliary units - just look at Mark Winter Court, Western Court, Uldis Place (off Harris St) and the new development to begin at 18-20 Harris St (opposite Uldis Place); there are already almost 50 'auxiliary units' in this relatively small area (or soon will be once all approved auxiliary units have been built). None of these 'auxiliary units' are subservient to the main dwelling on the lot nor are they used for intergenerational housing as per the ICCs intended use of an auxiliary unit. Instead, they are treated as second dwellings and independently rented through real estate companies. How is this any different to dual occupancy?

    ICC - stop turning a blind eye to the abuse of the auxiliary unit and start looking after the current constituents as you are bound to do by law.

    The high density of supposed 'auxiliary units' in the area surrounding 123 Johnston St is ridiculous! And It most certainly does not meet the Ipswich Planning Scheme's definition of a low-density residential zone (defined as 10-15 dwellings per hectare).

  19. In Wonga Park VIC on “Subdivisions, variations to...” at Lot 3 Holloway Road, Wonga Park VIC 3115:

    Rohan commented

    My name is Rohan and I am 11 years old.
    My dog Ziggy and I love to go for walks in this piece of land.
    We love seeing bunny rabbits, ducks, and rainbow lorikeets here.
    We saw a wallaby once, but it was too quick, so it may have been a kangaroo.
    We also often see 2 kookaburras - always together as a pair.
    If you make lots of houses in this piece of land, all that wildlife will have to find new homes.
    Also building lots more houses means having lots more cars and that will mean the air we breath will not be as clean. I have read that at the moment our air is the cleanest in the world.
    Please leave open green spaces in Chirnside Park as they are.
    Thank you.
    From Rohan and Ziggy

  20. In Wonga Park VIC on “Subdivisions, variations to...” at Lot 3 Holloway Road, Wonga Park VIC 3115:

    Priya Mishra commented

    Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme Amendment C176 and Planning Permit Application YR-2018/358, Lot 3, Holloway Road, Wonga Park

    I wish to voice my strong objection to the granting of the above-mentioned Planning Permit application.

    The site as it stands at the moment is a serene and beautiful piece of natural land and is used by residents and their beloved pets for walks and general nature appreciation. It is a wonderful open space which supports a wetland and native wildlife. Proposed removal of vegetation will drive out the abundance of birds that flock to the area.

    It concerns me that our council appears to be giving in to greed in even considering the inappropriate development of this space into a residential subdivision with a token area dedicated to wetlands.

    The proposal that ONE road will lead into the residential subdivision for 48 dwellings will create traffic congestion, noise pollution and impact negatively on air quality. Turning traffic will cause headlights shining into dwelling affected on Regency Rise and Meadowbank Avenue. The application permit appears misleading as it implies there will be a road thoroughfare via Holloway Road. There is however ONE road only proposed for 48 dwellings - access being via Regency Rise!

    In relation to waste collection for dwellings in the proposed residential subdivision - Will collection be from each proposed dwelling or from a central location as is current practice from certain court locations within Chirnside Village? Will this pose a further traffic hazard?

    Further the proposed development does not appear to include a playground or an open space.

    I hope the council rethinks its approach to inappropriate development and protects the liveability and character of Chirnside Park and disallows this planning permit.

  21. In Colyton NSW on “Manufactured Secondary...” at 27 Ball Street Colyton NSW 2760:

    Shauna-Marie Wilson commented

    I submit that the following conditions of consent be imposed to protect the community, environmental sustainability and the dwelling residents:

    Due to concerns about adequate solar access for the secondaey dwelling and adequate outdoor space it's residents, it is submitted that there be a setback of 2000mm from the western and eastern boundaries of its lot.

    Due to local flash flooding risks and the project increasing inundation of rainwater to local drains, it is submitted that the main and secondary dwellings have rainwater harvesting systems installed, with a capacity minimum of 5000 litres for the main dwelling and 3000 litres for the secondary, with both plumbed to fixtures for WC, one outdoor tap, and cold taps in the laundry according to relevant plumbing standards.

    That the secondary dwelling have mechanical ventilation to the exterior from its kitchen rangehood, WC and bathroom.

    That each bedroom and other habitable room of the secondary dwelling have fitted photoelectric smoke detectors that are hardwired with internal lithium battery backup and interconnected with each other.

    That sections of fencing between the original dwelling and secondary dwelling be of a type with aggregate gaps totalling a minimum 25% of aggregate volume and air gaps exceeding 50% of total volume in the portion which is up to 300mm above the ground and fixed with mesh to prevent domestic animal.penetration.

    That a folding clothes hoist be fitted to a location maximising solar yield and not in tree shadows I think upon the eastern side of the secondary dwelling, and that the portion of roof guttering above it be fixed with bird control spikes in order to deter bird roosting.

    That in the southern area of the property in what was the fro t yard of the original dwelling an off street parking g spot of 7.5 X 3m minimum size of permeable materials only be provided with street access for resident use I. Order to avoid neighbourhood congestion increases.

    Suitable landscaping in the secondary dwelling site to be undertaken with strictly plants of native and local provenance only. Any non native tree present on the whole site other than a recognised species producing edible fruit or nuts shall be removed at the owner expense.

    That air conditioning units be of inverter type only.

    That the secondary dwelling pier height be increased to 1000mm or if skylights covering 5% of floor space are added to each room the. A pier height of 750mm.

    That a drainwave (trademark) device be fitted linking bathroom & WC waste together in order for toilet that is more economic to be fitted so that the toilets maximum full flush volume shall not exceed 3 litres and the drainwave enable proper carriage of WC waste to the sewer network if installed with connections from the shower.

    That the laundry have mechanical ventilation with fan to exterior.

    That lighting be by LED downlights only.

  22. In South Launceston TAS on “Manufacturing and...” at 27 Shamrock Street West South Launceston TAS 7249:

    Garry Stannus commented

    No, in my view, dwellings should be retained. People need homes. Homes should not be structures bought and demolished on 'Monopoly Boards'. People need places to live and they need to be able to own them.

  23. In Guildford West NSW on “DA's - Change Of use from...” at 7 Leach Road Guildford West NSW 2161:

    Bobby commented

    I do not think this a good location for day care. The road is narrow at the front of this property plus on a slight bend in the road. Must keep in mind the safety of young children with parents dropping off & picking up at this location is not going to be good on a fairly busy road.

  24. In Saint Peters NSW on “Boarding House” at 96 May Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Peter Ross commented

    It is surprising that so little information is provided in this application. Why is it so? How can residents make informed submissions?

  25. In Lewisham NSW on “***secpp***” at 2B West Street Lewisham NSW 2049:

    Helen Barnes commented

    I object to proposed development DA201800505 at 2B West St, Lewisham.
    The proposed building heights are too high for the area and will overshadow the neighbourhood.
    Petersham Park is an historic low rise area. This will dominate and crowd the area, reducing amenity for other residents and park users. It will add to noise, traffic, crowding and pollution.
    It is also an ugly building that will detract from the current Federation era streetscape.

  26. In Woolgoolga NSW on “Health Care Building-New-...” at 5 Beach Street Woolgoolga NSW 2456:

    Robert Buckley commented

    With all the improvements and development that’s happening at Woolgoolga isn’t it about time Coffs Council spent some money on the main entry Roads coming from the North and the South of Solirty Island Way from where the round a bout near Woolworths.

    When visitors and travelers first arriving all they see is undeveloped drains, overgrown and ditches between the bridge near Newmans road all the way South passed the round a bout as far as the industrial estate, it’s a disgrace and should have been on the agenda long ago, most people who resides at Woolgoolga are proud of their town, but are ashamed of the approaches coming into Woolgoolga, at the present we cannot call Woolgoolga a tidy town and certainly wouldn’t receive any awards for it, over the years our rates have increased but I’ve seen very little improvements or money spent on this one issue that sticks out like a soar toe.
    Make us residence proud and giving our visitors a more pleasant stay, after all they come here and spend money that helps the local economy, improvements would only make Woolgoolga more attractive and draw more people to spend their holidays and money here.

  27. In Saint Peters NSW on “Boarding House” at 96 May Street St Peters NSW 2044:

    Jen commented

    What? That's it? Boarding House. No information about how many beds / rooms / parking / facilities. Why is there no information?

  28. In Kings Langley NSW on “Development Application for...” at Sunnyholt Road Kings Langley NSW 2147:

    Mel commented

    The current state of Sunnyholt Road won’t cope with a development of this size. The entrance and exit presumably will be on Vardys Road which is high risk for the traffic coming through the lights into that section. As it is only about 5 cars get through the light changes heading in that direction and this will impede traffic flow even more. We also have a very low crime rate at this end of Blacktown area and the increase of that many people will impede services and could increase crime. A development of a smaller size should be thoroughly considered.

  29. In Lewisham NSW on “***secpp***” at 2B West Street Lewisham NSW 2049:

    Scott MacArthur commented

    The Society is generally supportive of this proposal, but has concerns that the height and density of the proposed buildings could be used by private residential developers as a justification for high density development in the area. The Society acknowledges that the applicant has retained the most heritage significant buildings on the site. These buildings should be retained in perpetuity and a sinking fund established for their ongoing maintenance and enhancement. The provision of aged care and retirement options in the Inner West is vitally important for local residents. The prospect of having to leave the area one has lived in as one ages and become less independent is distressing, and all too common. This development promises to provide an opportunity for local people to transition from independent living to supported care within the neighbourhoods that are familiar and supportive of them.
    However the special conditions of aged independent and supported care, will mean that the impact on surrounding areas are minimal. Comparable private residential developments would have considerably greater parking requirements and traffic generation effects and should not be permitted to use this development as a precinct exemplar or justification.
    Marrickville Heritage Society

  30. In Maroubra NSW on “Stage 1 of 2 stages -...” at 481-499 Malabar Road Maroubra NSW 2035:

    James Ford commented

    Any independent person asked 'what would make sense for that site?', would never suggest an aged care facility. The fact that it must by law house a proportion of high care residents means a large numbers of its residents will never leave the building nor make use of the coastal position to enrich their lives. My father is an institution such as this I can tell you the overwhelming majority of its residents (even the non high care residents) will either not be able to, or will rarely make use of the beach or appreciate the village atmosphere of the local area. Conversely however this business will convert the area into a restricted access zone not open to the rest of the community. Only those with swipe cards or access codes or specific business in the building will gain entry. This is how these facilities operate, it is a necessary part of caring for dementia patients. The very size of the business and the amount of traffic it generates will however impact on the ability of the rest of society to make use of the rare coastal precinct.

    The Maroubra beach area is nestled in a small cozy space at the base of surrounding hills, when added to the already large and blocky Maroubra Seals the size of the proposed building will transform the look and feel of the whole area. The built environment is key to creating the look and feel of an area. People come to the beach from far and wide for recreation and to get a sense of space and nature. A built environment with massive concrete structures pushing into the sky are anathema to that purpose. It is also much easier to erode a sense of community with large buildings than to build one. There are also practical reasons why having so much more traffic to the area is not a good idea.
    Parking is already difficult to find, in the last 5 years the number of cars permanently parked on the surrounding streets has soared and it is difficult already to find parking even on rainy days.
    It makes total sense to build aged care facilities and it is our moral duty to care for elderly people but let us make no bones about the fact that the driving force behind this development are the business interests of a large institutional investor. While these business interests are legitimate and should be encouraged they are not the right fit for this location.
    The external costs of this development are high and so is the opportunity cost of not developing something that might deliver greater utility to greater numbers of people in the broader community. It just makes no sense to house large numbers of high care people confined to their building in an area so close such a valuable public resource for recreation.
    This is wrong place for the right development. The beach precinct and its surrounds are a recreational jewel in the crown of our society, lets not clog it up with a business that can be carried out just as successfully somewhere more appropriate.

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts