Recent comments

  1. In Roseville Chase NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 39 Babbage Road, Roseville Chase, NSW:

    John greenwood commented

    Can you please advise how a build can ask for a boarding house with 17 rooms ,and only include 5 car spaces on Babbage road .will the other members of the boarding house park on the road , were there is only a very narrow feeder road out side this site?

  2. In Roseville Chase NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 39 Babbage Road, Roseville Chase, NSW:

    Gaby commented

    This is an area where a boarding house would not be appreciated. We have many young families and a playground close to the above property. My first concern is the type of residents who would be attracted to low cost boarding. My second concern is the removal of trees, too many trees have been unlawfully removed in the Roseville Chase area. We would like to keep the status quo of a peaceful, leafy family suburb and a low cost boarding house does not fit the demographic of this area.

  3. In Epping NSW on “Section 96 (1) -...” at 44 Kent Street Epping NSW 2121 Australia:

    Schtang commented

    The greed creep by the State NSW government and their developer mates are destroying the essence of Sydney. We live in Sydney, not high density unitville of Bejing or Singapore. The heritage aesthetic of federation, and jewel in the grown bushland setting of Sydney sets it apart from any other city in the world. We need to protect this. HSC and the Baird government's myopic attitude to creating a Bairdtopia and treating a community as a commodity is quite disgraceful.

  4. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 27 Warren Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    suzanna szabo wrote to local councillor Morris Hanna

    This development is not in keeping with the streetscape nor the cadastral patten of properties in the street. This Section of Warren road is of historical, social and architectural interest to the state of NSW. It remains as assessed in the Marrickville heritage study of 1986. For example Joe Cahill ( the Cahill express was named after him) was raised in this street and many contributors to Sydney's public service and business have lived here. Not to mention the historic and heritage church with and parish house nearby.
    The street demographic comprises families, elderly and low cost housing. As one resident said- it is a lovely street with lovely people and should remain as it is.
    The house at number 27 Warren road is a largely intact Italianate building with original features. All through the development application the owner/applicant derided both the street and the house. The signage for publication of the DA was between 30 December 2015 and 26 January 2016, right in the middle of the holiday period and the public notification sign was not visible for days during this period. Many people who live in close proximity to this property also state that they did not get a notification letter so as to respond to this development application and were dismayed.
    All in all it is a shame to increase the congestion and reduce the amenity for this already crowded and busy street, for the local hardworking community that resides here in Warren road.
    As a local resident I am aware that all of the houses remain largely intact inside and out. The street attracts visitors and artists from all walks of life, young renters like the street for its historical charm and there are people who have been here for over 50 years. The development proposed at number 27 is not instep with the NSW state government plan nor local zoning rules,this part of Warren road is meant to be low rise/ low density accommodation. To put 3 three bedroom houses with basement house and carports and paved courtyards on one plot is overcrowding and insensitive to the area and local residents.
    This house is now being renovated for the purposes of a boarding house and it is clear that there has been no development application for such a purpose. Council needs to look into the actions of the developer. If the house is ruined from the inside will this affect councils assessment of this property because the applicant had stated incorrectly that there were little or no original features to this Italianate property?

    Delivered to local councillor Morris Hanna. They are yet to respond.

  5. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 27 Warren Road Marrickville NSW 2204:

    suzanna szabo wrote to local councillor Sylvie Ellsmore

    Additionally, the owner of number 27 Warren road is now doing renovations and states he intends to make the house into a boarding house. This is before the original DA has been assessed. There has been no planning permission sought for a boarding house in the initial DA. A reference to low cost accommodation in the DA is not the same as a boarding house DA.
    I was dismayed to see workman come to the house on 9 February with sledge hammers, parking illegally on the street and doing some kind of renovation.
    The owner if he is to make a boarding house of this property needs to make another DA.
    Warren road between Illawarra and Livingstone roads has upwards of 4 rooming and boarding houses at present maybe more- as well as other low cost housing and apartments. The accommodation at number 27 Warren road requires major renovations to comply with a boarding house development. Council should investigate the developers intentions and actions.

    Delivered to local councillor Sylvie Ellsmore. They are yet to respond.

  6. In Thornbury VIC on “Medium density housing...” at 121 Hutton Street Thornbury VIC 3071:

    Maria Poletti commented

    If you would like some help with objecting to this planning application come to the next DADA meeting, 7pm on Tuesday March 8th at 33 Dean Street, Preston or go to the DADA website http://www.darebinada.org/category/objections

  7. In Waterloo NSW on “Application for the...” at 171B Botany Road Waterloo NSW 2017:

    Sally commented

    This development would integrate more into the existing community and is more in keeping with the marketed diversity agenda of Waterloo than a previous application (https://www.planningalerts.org.au/applications/547711). However the number of residents using bicycles over cars is optimistic -- where does the City of Sydney Council expect the residents to park, and how does it expect the area to resource the parkland, entertainment, recreation, etc. amenities required by this and related high density developments endorsed for the area?

  8. In Canterbury VIC on “Use of the land as a...” at 1 / 241 Canterbury Road Canterbury VIC 3126:

    Maree commented

    I found the advertisement for the brothel on Locanto, it gives the impression the business is already operating from this address. Pictures of four Asian girls, one is nude and two are flashing their underwear, 100% convinced they are hookers. Boroondara council tell the truth. As a resident of Boroondara I do not want brothels in the area, especially ones that are likely to be involved in human trafficking!

  9. In Epping NSW on “Section 96 (1) -...” at 44 Kent Street Epping NSW 2121 Australia:

    Vanessa commented

    Not all of Epping's residents are against change. Believe it or not we need to accommodate for the increasing population and NIMBY attitudes don't help. Epping is no different to the rest of Sydney, which is undergoing high density transformations.

    Anyway, I do agree with Norman that school and local infrastructure upgrades are essential to accommodate for the increase in population around Epping.

  10. In Winston Hills NSW on “Proposed Shop Top Housing...” at Winston Hills Shopping Centre, 180-192 Caroline Chisholm Drive, Winston Hills NSW 2153:

    Kate Mai commented

    Hi,

    I WOULD LIKE TO SAY "NO" WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT

    We have moved in Winston Hills for about 1 year and the main reason for us to choose this suburb is because there is no high rise department, which makes it a charm, peaceful area. The infrastructure is not designed for high density as all roads just have one lane. Childcare centers are overcrowded as I could not find a place for my daughter so I have to send her to a far away childcare center. Primary schools are also suffer as my son is going to kindy this year and teachers said they have to open one more class, with the same staffing, which create much pressure for them.

    My husband takes bus to work everyday and said the buses are heavy load, sometimes no seat. I drive my kids to school everyday and there is often no parking near the school. Imagine what happen when we have few hundreds new comers.

    In short, the suburb is only attractive as it is now. If you allow to build a high rise department, both old and new residents will not feel happy living here as they will have to compete hardly for very limited infrastructure and service resources. The only happy party is the developer with a full pocket of money.

    So, please be thoughtful about this, your decision will affect so many people and their families.

    Best regards,
    Kate

  11. In Meadowbank NSW on “Section 96(2) application...” at 116 -144 Bowden Street, Meadowbank:

    Alastair Agnew commented

    I concur 100% with the submission of Huw Edwards on this matter. That the planning authority should even countenance such ad hoc, post-approval variations does seem to make a mockery of the entire planning process. It seems a deliberate, pre-planned and strategic approach by developers, whereby the initial application is little more than a starting point in terms of how the development will look when completed.

    The role of the planning authority in this process is disheartening. Rarely are these variations ever denied. Thus this submission carries no expectation of having any effect on the outcome.

    As local residents, we respect the need for an increase in the housing stock as per local zoning. However the effect of these cynically rolled out additions, with the inevitable sharp degradation of overall amenity (as noted, placing even further stress on the already chaotic present day transformation of Bowden St) is to completely remove any residual confidence in the fairness and validity of the planning process.

  12. In Capalaba QLD on “Landscaping Works - Tower A...” at 54-58 Mount Cotton Road, Capalaba, QLD:

    Amy Glade commented

    look forward to viewing completed landscaping as there appears to be limited space to work with. Many people wonder where additional cars will park when project complete since most families have two cars and what will amenity & wellbeing be like for locals residing in narrow Aramac Crt surrounds cnr Redland Bay/Mt Cotton Rds when 271 apts occupied? Lately, I'm finding it harder to find a car space under Capalaba Park shops car parking across from site & can't help wondering...what will it be like when the 271+ apartments are occupied? I've shopped at Coles for past 30 years and would like to keep on shopping there, if possible.

  13. In Epping NSW on “Section 96 (1) -...” at 44 Kent Street Epping NSW 2121 Australia:

    Norman commented

    It's difficult to believe that the supportive comments don't come from people wih a vested interest like developers and real-estate agents. I hope HSC are not swayed by anonymous comments by people who, for all we know, don't even live in Epping.

    As a long-time Epping resident, I'm appalled that these sorts of developments are being approved without any apparent consideration being given to the impact they will have on demand for local services such as schools, as well as traffic and parking.

  14. In Fitzroy VIC on “(a) the demolition of...” at 142-144 Johnston St Fitzroy VIC 3065:

    Kim Monaghan commented

    Is seven stories for private apartment building and given the many current developments in progress appropriate for Fitzroy? Single and double storey houses, warehouses and factories, and retail buildings are being swamped by multi-storey developments. Fitzroy is rapidly becoming a suburb of short term residents living in singularly occupied, high density accommodation. The sense of community diminishes with each and every multi-storey development.

  15. In Canterbury VIC on “Use of the land as a...” at 1 / 241 Canterbury Road Canterbury VIC 3126:

    Clare Buckley commented

    Is this a legitimate massage parlour or is it a brothel ?
    The extremely scantily clad Asian women featured in their advertisement strongly suggests the latter.!!!
    Again I say, not in my back yard.

  16. In Meadowbank NSW on “Section 96(2) application...” at 116 -144 Bowden Street, Meadowbank:

    Huw Edwards commented

    I oppose this development on the basis that it has already gone through an exhaustive approval process which dealt with the issues and loss of amenity resulting from this project in great detail.

    If there was a requirement for the community center it should of been included in the existing development application and not added on after the fact, along with the additional parking which will exit directly onto the already stressed Bowden street.

    In the last two weeks the developer has requested 65 additional parking spaces across two applications alone. It is foreseeable that we are talking about hundreds of additional parkings spaces on top of those approved by the time all developments are done.

    The developer needs to respect the decisions taken by the planning authority and councils and stop continuously coming back with substantial changes to their development, mostly driven by the desire to increase their profits.

  17. In Epping NSW on “Section 96 (1) -...” at 44 Kent Street Epping NSW 2121 Australia:

    Vanessa commented

    Eight houses are being demolished, not one. These developments along the Cliff/Kent/Carlingford roads are limited to 5 levels which is not that bad considering places like Wolli Creek are building much higher in a smaller area.

    As long as the local schools can accommodate the increase it should be ok. With regards to parking, the Cliff/Kent street areas are used by many people who need to park their cars in order to catch the train at Epping station. Generally parking around this area has been untimed and free for the whole day. What is going to happen to street parking once residents start moving in to these developments? Although these developments have basement parking, potentially hundreds of residents and non-residents will be competing for a limited amount of street parking.

  18. In Hawthorn VIC on “Subdivision of the land...” at 124 - 130 Burwood Road Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Glen Thomson commented

    This building is already under construction - why is planning permission being sought at this stage?

  19. In Darlington NSW on “S96(2) modification of...” at 262 Abercrombie Street Darlington NSW 2008:

    Mike Clay commented

    I like this cafe. It is well run and a great addition to the local area. Provided they stick to the management plan, which will limit the noise and the number of patrons, I don't see a problem with this development plan and the extended hours.

  20. In West Pennant Hills NSW on “Residential - Other -...” at 100 Castle Hill Road West Pennant Hills NSW 2125 Australia:

    Michael Preedy commented

    The proposed boarding house at 100 castle hill road is completely out of character for the area and highly inappropriate for the location proposed. In what is traditionally a low density residential area. occupied by young families and the elderley, many who have lived in the area for extended periods of time, the introdcution of such a facility has a high probability of introducing conflict and issues in the surrounding community. This may include the following types of issues: parking, noise, public nuissance, crime and anti social behaviour. This is not in keeping with the quiet suburban character of west pennant hills.
    Whilst Castle Hill Road is a major arterial road it is also the gateway to the thriving Hills district. It is characteristed by period homes, large residential blocks and soon upmarket medium density development around the new station precincts. A boarding house is not consistent with these building types, nor the amenity of this picturesque thoroughfare.
    I suggest council decline this proposal on the abovementioned grounds and stand firm on development that is consistent with the area and surroundings and not allow one person to beneift to the detriment of a surrounding community.

  21. In Epping NSW on “Section 96 (1) -...” at 44 Kent Street Epping NSW 2121 Australia:

    jay commented

    Far too many units for this area, one house is demolished and 166 families move in? Keep the development reasonable as in 20 units perhaps...We have terrible gridlock and parking issues already.

  22. In Macquarie Park NSW on “Mixed Use Development” at 120-126 Herring Road, Macquarie Park:

    Margaret Allan-Elgood commented

    Surely I cannot believe what my eyes are reading. This section of Macquarie Park is already congested. Travelling down Herring Rd has become a nightmare in peak hour - morning and afternoon.

    The volume of traffic exceeds the capacity of the road with a short journey in terms of length (3 km from my home to Macquarie Centre) frequently becoming a marathon in terms of time with the volume of cars one encounters. This journey can frequently take up to 40 minutes..

    This is an example of over-development. Traffic surveys in peak hour will confirm the daily congestion. Approval of this development application would only exacerbate this unacceptable situation.

  23. In Darlington NSW on “S96(2) modification of...” at 262 Abercrombie Street Darlington NSW 2008:

    Stephen commented

    Currently this great, local cafe closes no later than 6pm. Whilst I have no problems with them staying open later I am concerned that noise from the rear courtyard will make neighbours very unhappy.

    Their courtyard is within a rectangle of rear properties. As a resident of one of these properties we generally don't talk in the back garden in the evening simply because sound travels. The neighbours do the same. It is whisper quiet. And echoey.

    It's possible to have a conversation with another neighbour 20 meters away with a normal speaking voice. For example, when new neighbours where partying in the back very late we politely asked them to be quiet from our bedroom window. They were surprised they could hear us too and went quiet, not realising we could listen to their every, drunken word. It really is like an amphitheatre with sound bouncing around the walls.

    The Tripod is only several metres away from our bedroom window. We go to bed early (and need to have the window open for ventilation). This just won't work. I am sorry but I can't support this. If the activities are kept to the insides of the property it probably would be fine, but regular use of the rear courtyard after dark, with or without an on-premises licence, just will not work.

  24. In Brunswick East VIC on “Construction of five triple...” at 132 Nicholson Street, Brunswick East VIC 3057:

    Mark Simpson commented

    I know the feeling. I'm watching the construction right now of a new set of dwellings with a balcony staring straight into the rear of my house. But don't worry because it's protected by a 1.7m high, 70% blocking screen! Yeah, because I don't know anyone over 1.7m tall... and anyway, who wants privacy these days? Of course I can't object against that because it's over 3 metres away - according to council planning nobody can see further than 3 metres either.

  25. In West Pennant Hills NSW on “Residential - Other -...” at 100 Castle Hill Road West Pennant Hills NSW 2125 Australia:

    Michelle Bender commented

    The application is a concern to me for many reasons.

    The plan shows 8 parking places on the premises and that will cause all other residents with vehicles in excess of this number to park in nearby streets, probably Victoria Rd or New Line Rd.

    The residents of these streets will then have limited parking outside their homes and also have to endure extra noise at possibly most unsocial hours.

    There is already a shortage of parking at the Castle Hill Rd end of New Line Rd due to parishioners from St Matthews parking to attend services and parents parking to drop off and pick up their children from Binnowee Kindergarten.

    The developers would have us believe that not every room will accommodate 2 people but every room except one of the proposed 29 rooms, is a double room, with capacity for 2 people and with that, the possibility for 2 cars to be associated with each of the 28 units.

    Considering the size of the rooms and the fact that people would be recreating, cooking and sleeping in what is really a bedroom, the boarding house has the very real prospect of turning into a slum.

    West Pennant Hills is a most unsuitable area for a large boarding house accommodating people of a transient nature, as it is home to a large number of young families and has a substantial number of elderly people who can be vulnerable when out in the community.

    West pennant Hills currently has a low crime rate and it is of concern that a boarding house may increase anti-social behaviour and crime.

    Who will this complex house?
    Traditionally boarding houses have mainly attracted the following:

    People who are without references from former landlords
    Newly released ex-prisoners
    Mental health clients
    People with drug and alcohol related issues
    Long term unemployed
    Or worst of all, people who have a combination of all of the above.

    Whilst all of the aforementioned people should be included in communities, they should not all be grouped together without immediate support and supervision and a Boarding House Manager will not suffice.

    This situation will set people up for failure and may ostracise them in the community.

  26. In West Hobart TAS on “Change of use/short term...” at 35 Summerhill Road West Hobart 7000:

    cheryl lynch commented

    I reside at 33 Summerhill Road.
    The residence at 35 Summerhill Road have 3 vehicles, one for each adult and their oldest child. There is only 2 vehicular places on their property. The third vehicle is either parked outside 33 or 35 Summerhill Road. The resident's at 35 Summerhill Road regularly rent out not only the newly built "studio" but for a number of years the main residence. Generally ANY holiday period the home owners of 35 Summerhill Road, have sub-let their home since 1996. I assume they utilise the location's views over Hobart as a selling point, as mentioned in their Airbnb advertisement for "Summerhill Studio".
    I must admit I has neighbour envy because of the large number of visitors that have been coming and going. I now realise that they have been possibly utilising the " original studio" and the main residence for holiday accomodation. I have been often parked out of my home or cars parked over my driveway which has necessitated my to ask for who ever is in residence at number 35 to move their vehicle.

    I ask the Hobart City Council give consideration the current off-street parking for 35 Summerhill Road, West Hobart.

    Prior to Christmas 2015, the deck was substantially demolished and rebuilt. The metal worker who was working on the deck, 8am Christmas eve on was not using adequate protectve equipment and the vegetation along my driveway was sprayed in sparks. Also they parked over my driveway and when I asked them to take more care ( because of the sparking from welding they did so, reluctantly. They also refused to re-park their vehicle saying that they would move the vehicle at their convenience. It was not until I insisted they the siuation was resolved.
    Again I had yet "another neighbour" appear to reside 35 Summerhill Road over Christmas and new year 2015/6. I have had the pleasure of "new residents" at 35 Summerhill Road road, greet my whilst entering my home, star blankly at me and other obtrusive types of behaviour. ( including parties at night). This has over the years has caused me upset and anxiety in leaving and entering my own home. Basically it can be very uncomfortable.
    Ms Hull has now taken to sitting on the edge of the "deck" which exacerbates the loss of privacy and amenity to my home, particularly in my dining and kitchen. Ms Hull every few month's leans over onto my property to " maintain" the view and then places the 10cm cuttings back onto of my vegetation causing the plants to suffocate with the rot from the dead cuttings. I will point out I do regularly trim my vegetation to ensure no over hang but as soon as I do Ms Hull helps ( in my abscence) by leaning over the fenceline trims my trees on my property up to 2 meters onto my property. I have reiterated on a number of occasions that I will remove any vegetation however Ms Hull has never made such a request.
    They also refuse to trim their own vegetation the has basically become overgrown opposite the " new studio " which completely overlooks my property. The overgrown vegetation is unsightly and has blocked the afternoon sun into my home.
    I note that on the Airnbnb advertisement that there is only a minimum 1, one night stay. This would lead possibly even more guests in a short period of time arriving and leaving 35 Summerhill Road. I request that the Hobart City Council give consideration for the time duration of the proposed Airbnb.

    Secondly, the properties at 44, 46 and 37 Summerhill Road all have 2/3 vehicles and the properties at 46 and 37 have undergone major redevelopment in recent years and also may have issues they may wished to be addressed.
    I ask the Hobart City Council give consideration to the needs of the resident's neighbouring 35 Summerhill Road.

    Thirdly, the property at 42 Summerhill Road, is also now being let as holiday accomodation. The vehicles from this rental have not always utilised the available parking and I have been parked in by large van and trailer used for cyclists, and other vehicles given. Given that 42 Summerhil Road ( which is directly opposite my home at number 33) is in close proximity I ask the Hobart City Council to give consideration to all residents in this part of Summerhill Road.

    Fourth, this application does not include the main residential building located at 35 Summerhill Road. It appears most likely the homeowners have for a number of years sub-let their home at Christmas, Easter, long weekends and any other convenient opportunity to them. I suggest that given the past history of sub-letting the Hobart City Council should give consider to an application covering the main residence.

    Fifth, given the possible past history of sub-letting the main residential building I ask the Hobart City Council to review the screening along the titles of the two properties of 33 and 35 Summerhill Road, respectively.
    Currently there is minimal screening erected to maintain privacy and amenity for 33 Summerhill Road. When the deck was rebuilt in December 2015 the screening on the deck was reduced. Also when the fence was repaired, a number of years ago it was re-erected on the lower level on 33 Summerhill Road, giving the property at 35 Summerhill Road a 0. 5 meter height advantage, ie the fence is 1.8m on 33 Summerhill Road and 1.3m on 35 Summerhill Road. The past past fence repairs were organised by the residents of 35 Summerhill Road, who indicated after the 'new' fence was constructed on the lower level for ease of construction. However it would appear that the fence was erected to suit the residents of 35 Summerhill Road and little consideration for the privacy of 33 Summerhill Road.
    The natural ground level between the two properties is not the same. There is a 0.5 meter height difference on the boundary line and a further 1.2 meters drop to a retaining wall on 33 Summerhill Road. There is a total height difference of 1.7 meters between the natural ground level of both properties on which the individual foundations of each dwelling is constructed.

    The "deck" located at one boundary of 35 Summerhill Road has been re- constructed The height between the ground and carport roof is approx. 1.8 meters.There is a further 0.5 meters fromt top of the carport and the floor of the deck. The deck is afurther 1.3 meters in height. The total height of the deck from natural ground level is appprox. 3.6 meters. The height diffference between the deck on the main residental building of 35 Summerhill Road and the residential building of 33 Summerhill Road is approx. 5.3 meters.

    Apart from the fence which is 1.3 meters on 35 Summerhill Road their is no screening provided and only 0.9 meter setback. It would be appreciated that that loss of privacy and amenity at 33 Summerhill Road, and the sub-letting by the home owners of 35 Summerhill Road that the Hobart City Council give close scruitiny to the application for change of use to include all aspects of the potential and actual use of the property and to apply relevant restrictions on how they use their property as a commercial operation with consideration given that this is a private residential location.

    regards

    Cheryl Lynch

  27. In Erskineville NSW on “Use public footway on...” at 128 Erskineville Road Erskineville NSW 2043:

    Colm Halbert commented

    I totally agree with Mr Bacon. We need to encourage a sense of community and support local businesses.

  28. In North Curl Curl NSW on “<Insert Details>” at 29 Robertson Road, North Curl Curl NSW 2099:

    Aaron Bongiorno commented

    My wife Annika and I are the owners of the vacant block directly neighbouring the eastern boundary of the subject property and have DA approved plans to build our family home on this lot. As such, we naturally have a strong level of interest in whatever is to be built next door to us and what impact it may have on our property.

    After careful review of the submitted plans, we think they look great and are not opposed to them whatsoever. From what we can see, it looks like it will be a very appealing home and believe that it will only further add to the appeal of the area and, hopefully, add to the value and appeal of our own eventual home. We hope that ours can do the same for the street and it's neighbouring properties when ours is eventually built also.

  29. In Balmain NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 499 Darling Street Balmain NSW 2041:

    Mark and Amanda Rayner commented

    We live at 70 Elliott Street Balmain 2041 and the back of our house faces onto Doolan Lane .
    We would like to ensure that the privacy screening detailed in the da for 499 darling street balmain ( Doolan street side ) provides us with sufficient privacy regarding the view into our back bedroom, kitchen and Garden.

  30. In Erskineville NSW on “Use public footway on...” at 128 Erskineville Road Erskineville NSW 2043:

    Luke Bacon commented

    Please approve this application to renew the existing approved outdoor seating/hours.

    Stir Crazy Thai has been a long running local asset. The tables on the street make great use of the wider footpath at that point of Erskineville Rd. Having everyone out eating on the street at Stir Crazy, and the Rose and Hive Bar over the road, is great—you see all your neighbours out having a good time, taking advantage of our shared public space.

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