Recent comments

  1. In East Lindfield NSW on “Child care - change of use...” at 125 Tryon Road, East Lindfield, NSW:

    Yvonnne Jayawardena commented

    this is the wrong location for a large childcare centre due to the traffic situation in Tryon
    Road.. Between the hours of 8.45 am and 2.45 pm it is a quiet suburban road. Between
    7 am and 8.45 am and 2.45 pm and 4 pm it is bumper to bumper. I live further down the
    street and had to wait for 32 cars to pass before I could get out of my driveway
    There are 3 reasons for this: the local public school close to opposite of no.125 , the Oval further down on the opposite side with all the sports activities and the fact that
    there is only one traffic light for the whole of East Lindfield between Tryon Road and the Roseville School, so all traffic wanting to go West or North goes through Tryon
    Road from all the surrounding streets. The pedestrian traffic light close to Carnarvon
    does not count.
    I am seriously concerned about the safety of those children.

  2. In East Lindfield NSW on “Child care - change of use...” at 125 Tryon Road, East Lindfield, NSW:

    Sandra Lee commented

    East Lindfield is a beautiful residential area where many families are lucky to call home.

    I do NOT support having a large childcare centre on Tryon Road and believe the DA application no. DA0370/15 sould be REJECTED for the following reasons:

    1. Constant noise and disruption to local residents lifestyle in a peaceful and tranquil neighbourhood during the construction and when there are 36 kids and 9 staff operating from the centre.

    2. Traffic congestion on a busy road where there are significant visibility issues for traffic crossing Tryon Road into Sydney Road and also those turning right from Sydney Road to Tryon Road. Currently one or two cars of residents parked on the road are enough to cause poor visibility of cars coming up the hill towards the Tryon/Sydney Road intersection. Parents picking up and dropping off kids are also at risk of accidents from passing traffic on a road that is not wide enough to allow for parked cars and doors being opened wide to let babies and children get in and out.

    3. The proportion of hard spaces to soft spaces is grossly disproportionate with the greenscape that Kuringai and East Lindfield is known for and should not be tolerated.

    4. There is a great Council Childcare Centre in East Lindfield and a Community Preschool, along with other family daycare facilities in the suburb to service the needs of the local community. Families having to use childcare centres in other suburbs have been a practice that has existed for a long time and is a result of family preferences and not just avalable spots.

    5. This section of Sydney and Tryon road is also on a bus route and the buses will have trouble fitting on a shared road that's not wide enough for a large number of parked cars during school pickup and drop off times. The potential for accidents will increase due to congestion and visibility, not to mention poor driving practices that have become more prevalent.

    6. Traffic congestion causing safety issues are already apparent where Lindfield East Public School (LEPS) and the Community Preschool are. The section fo Tryon Road around LEPS is flat and visibility is still affected as it is usually very congested, let alone a poor visbility section on Tryon Road where 125 Tryon Road is located that will be extremely busy with at least 36 cars dropping off and picking up. It really is only a matter of time before a serious accident happens as there is a lot of traffic on these narrow suburban two way streets.

  3. In Forest Glen QLD on “269 Eudlo Flats Rd Forest...” at Maroochydore Rd, Forest Glen, QLD:

    A. Fidler commented

    This is a massive industrial project right smack in the middle of a thriving schooling and residential community. There are numerous concerns rising from such a development, environmental, noise, traffic to name a few. Surely this project can be positioned further away from the Coastal area.

  4. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of house at 117...” at 117 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, NSW:

    Ben Holden commented

    Whilst I no longer live on Merrivale Lane, I am strongly against the proposed development. Three generations of my family have enjoyed (and continue to enjoy) the beautiful views and the peace and quiet that are characteristic of our residential lane. I was fortunate enough to spend 11 glorious years of my childhood there and I could not have asked for a better environment for my up bringing. The quiet nature of our road encouraged children to be active and be outdoors - something that all councils should embrace with such high numbers of obese and overweight children. We could play cricket in the street, football in the front garden and there were never any concerns about oncoming traffic if we did have to fetch the odd ball off the road. The new development will potentially bring 150 new cars to our lane, which will only lead to increased risk and inconvenience for the existing families.

    Many members of the community have raised the issue around the safety and suitability of the roads and footpaths, but I cannot reiterate enough the dangers of the corner of Merrivale Lane and Pentecost Avenue. Over the years, we have seen many near misses, and sadly, some very serious accidents around this corner. Both drivers and pedestrians are vulnerable, and encouraging more people to this area is only adding to problem.

    I hope the council listens to its community and I hope common sense will prevail. Merrivale Lane has been an idyllic, safe haven for young and old alike. I truly could not have asked for a better place to grow up and I hope many more generations will be fortunate enough to share the same sentiment.

  5. In Mount Hutton NSW on “Telecommunications Facility” at 46 Wilsons Road, Mount Hutton NSW 2290:

    Douglas Kelly commented

    I have owned the Property at 55 Helen Street Mount Hutton since 1982.

    When the original application was made for the construction of the Lake Fair shopping centre it was for a shopping centre only. When this development was undertaken the natural route of the watercourse, which was a windy creek, was straightened and the water course shifted nearer to my residence to allow more room for the carpark.

    Several years later a new application was made to construct a petrol station at the rear of the shopping centre site, opposite my property. This site has increased the noise level to surrounding properties specifically by Liquid Gas Tankers filling the stations tanks at all hours of the night. This station was originally guaranteed to have minimal noise impact on surrounding residences and have working hours to ensure this. ( this is not the case at the present time and noise levels are unacceptable)

    The next issue of concern are the Charity clothing bins that have been installed adjacent to the Petrol Station. These bins are an eye sore and there are all types of housing rubbish dumped beside the bins nightly. A large amount of this rubbish is dumped in Scrubby Creek polluting the waterway, by people scavenging around the bins. They should be totally removed or relocated closer to the Hotel located near Coles so the visual impact on surrounding residences will be minimal

    Now I receive this proposal about a telecommunications Tower being installed close to my residence

    Firstly I am not an Optus user so there is no advantage to me, or a large portion of the community in the construction of this tower.

    A tower that size will tower above the landscape and the trees on Scrubby Creek are only about 4mtrs to 5 mtrs, the proposed tower is over 20 mtrs in height

    My biggest worry is the radiation levels from such a tower. The table showing radiation levels is very technical and is not clear to a normal person.

    I am from an electrical background and the table is confusing for me and is definitely not sufficient to allow surrounding home owners to asses the impact of the tower on their properties and give an accurate opinion on their acceptance of the proposed development.

    Lake Macquarie Council is asking effected owners to have their say but the information provided is not clear and concise enough to allow us to make an informed decision on the project

    I want to know what the proposed radiation levels are at my residence which is only 100mtrs from the proposed tower. The table is a very poor attempt to provide this information.

    I would have expected these levels would have been compiled for each property and mailed to all effected property owners as part of the development application.

    All individual property owners must be given accurate assessment of the radiation levels for their own properties. Not try to work out the levels from a technical table.

    My working career was with the NSW Department of Commerce and in my opinion the level of detail you are providing to property owners to asses this project is totally inadequate.

    The tower could be located in the bush land near the intersection of Warners Bay Road and Bayview Street. There are very few residences in this area and the impact would be minimal.

    Originally the Lake Fair had a 20mtr plus Flag Pole located outside the Main entry. This was demolished in the last round of expansion construction several years ago.

    Installation of the tower could be installed in the alleyway between Big W and Coles which would even less visual impact on surrounding property owners than the original flagpole.

    This alleyway was originally a through passageway between the two stores, but Woolworths extended their store several years ago blocking the alleyway. It is now minimally used for stores near Coles.

    The option to install the tower in Lake Fair appears to be based on the cheapest possible construction option and with little respect for surrounding property owners.

    There are large tracts of non residential land in the Mount Hutton, Tingara Heights area and a more suitable lower impact site could easily be found.

    This appears to be this easy cheap option with total disregard for Lake Macquarie rate payers

    Local residents originally thought the construction of Lake Fair was a good idea but the flow on effects from subsequent additions to the site have proven to be impacting negatively on adjacent property owners.

    Lake Macquarie Council is responsible for the rejection of developments that have negative impacts on rate payers when there are alternatives.

    This apparent cheap alternative, money driven project, has not provided adequate information to the Council and Property Owners and should be rejected.

    Await your response

  6. In Forest Glen QLD on “269 Eudlo Flats Rd Forest...” at Maroochydore Rd, Forest Glen, QLD:

    R Filler commented

    Grave concerns about an extractive industry so close to a residential area. The impact on the health of the residents and the wetlands& fish habitat may be under estimated. Roads and road safety will also suffer. On behalf of all coast lovers please reconsider this proposal.

  7. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of house at 117...” at 117 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, NSW:

    Margaret Driscoll commented

    I strongly support all the previous comments re the DA for a childcare facility in Merrivale Lane.We have lived in Buckra St. for 10 years and the proposed facility is totally inappropriate in this quiet residential area.I avoid driving down Merrivale Lane now because of the narrow road and the dangerous corner at Pentecost Avenue. Merrivale Lane, Buckra Street, and surrounding streets will be severely impacted with increased traffic volume.

  8. In Hawthorn VIC on “Use and development of a...” at 29 Queens Avenue Hawthorn VIC 3122:

    Barbara Workman commented

    I have received notice from Boroondara Council of this proposed development. I own an investment property in this street. The proposal currently requests an 8 storey building which is not in proportion to the other buildings in the street and will be overpowering and produce shade on the opposite side of the road.
    72 dwellings is quite dense and will increase the road and foot traffic in Queens Ave which is a very small street. I am most concerned about the proposal to reduce the car parking requirements and the request to waiver loading and unloading facilities for the shops. This will have a very detrimental effect on the road which is small and not suited to heavy traffic. Parking is already difficult in the area. I do not support these requests and feel it will have a negative effect on the environment and a negative effect on the amenity of my property.

    of my property.

  9. In Leichhardt NSW on “Alterations and Additions...” at 301 Parramatta Road Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Sarah Harvey commented

    It is my understanding that other residents of my street are campaigning against this development on the grounds of inconsistency with local "community values" and have alluded to issues with streetscape, character, availability of parking and safety of the surrounding area.

    I am writing to refute these claims and support the development application on the following grounds:

    1. The building to be altered is not an older terrace style house but a commercial block on a major road. Adding an extra storey therefore does not interfere with the current streetscape (much of which is already at the height this additional storey would give) or amenity of the area.

    2. The local community is a friendly community and I hope would welcome low-cost housing to the area. There is not enough social housing and providing low-cost options such as boarding houses is crucial for tackling homelessness. Moreover, dispersing low-cost housing throughout different suburbs is less likely to create "ghetto-type" areas than having them all in the one area. I am not aware of any other similar housing options within the immediate area so to me this would be an ideal location.

    3. Most people who live in lower cost accommodation such as boarding houses do not have vehicles. The location in question is well serviced by public transport. I therefore do not foresee any great influx of cars requiring parking.

    4. The assumption that those living in a boarding house are necessarily a greater risk to the safety of others than any other local resident is quite frankly offensive.

    A development application submission template objecting to this application is circulating the local streets and states that the development "is not supported by our local community." I wish to make it known that this is not the case, as my household, being three members of the community not only support this application but reject and take offense to such arguments being espoused on our behalf.

  10. In Newstead TAS on “Visitor Accommodation -...” at 1 Olive Street Newstead TAS 7250:

    Rose and Kent Luttrell commented

    This is a quite residential area, not sure the area is suited to holiday unit accomodation Will this disturb the ambience of our area? As 1 Olive St backs on to our property this could have dries consequences for us. Also parking is very difficult in this area. Is there sufficient parking for holiday rental? How many people will be able to rent the accommodation at the one time?

  11. In Freemans Reach NSW on “Garage” at 7 Graeme Place, Freemans Reach:

    Karen Muscat commented

    Good morning, I am on the understanding that immediate neighbours should get a letter via post prior to permission granted for building applications? We are next door to this application and did not receive any letter. Just to add that we would not have had a problem with this, but I think Council has a duty to inform neighbours.

  12. In Preston VIC on “A medium density housing...” at 27 Murphy Grove Preston VIC 3072:

    Chris Erlandsen commented

    This is an over-development and is not consistent with the pattern of existing housing stock. Residents who supported C152 did not agree to a proposal like this. With its proposed 3 storeys and waiving of car park spaces, the reality will be a further negative impact on the surrounding community.

  13. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of house at 117...” at 117 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, NSW:

    Michael Ellis commented

    I think many people have already raised objections on basis that this is a development on a scale totally unsuitable for Merrivale Lane and also for the number of children, way above most in the area. I concur with their objections.
    I further object as it will cause traffic problems in Merrivale Lane but also surrounding streets. I live in Buckra Street and already we seem to have become a peak hour by pass as particularly in the late afternoon motorists get off Pentecost Ave which often is blocked back from the Bobbin Head Rd lights to Merrivale lane/Rd intersection.
    All the streets around us are not suitable for increased traffic volumes, Princes Street particularly at the shops is so bad that you must give way to any on coming vehicles. Adams and Murdock Streets with cars parked also are not suitable for a lot of traffic. Buckra Street where I live is OK with out parked cars but most of Buckra Street is not suitable for any increase traffic volumes. I think the garbage truck driver deserves an award for getting around this area.
    This development will bring a volume of traffic not suitable for the area. The intersecrtion of Merrivale lane with Pentecost Ave is dangeroud now.
    By its very planned size, 150 children, they must be coming from outside the area. Rezoning Merrivale Lane as commercial is very wrong by Council, it is setting a very bad presedent and we will have developers very excited about what next they can do to ruin leafy Ku Ring Gai.
    A commercial development in Merrivale lane is very wrong.

  14. In Hobart TAS on “Partial demolition/tree...” at 181 Elizabeth Steet Hobart 7000:

    Arthur Robert Vincent commented

    Is there an arboriculture problem with the tree? If not why is being proposed for removal.

  15. In Dundowran Beach QLD on “Code Assess - Material...” at 58B Waterview Drive, Dundowran Beach, QLD:

    Steve and Kate Cavanagh commented

    We object to the application as it stands due to the failure to properly address:

    * parking, noise, privacy, drainage,traffic, dust and intrusion concerns with neighboring properties.
    * the criteria pertaining to the operating of a home based business in terms of hours of operation; client numbers; Sunday and public holiday operation.
    * The simple fact that such approval will change the low density residential nature of Dundowran Beach and have consequent negative impact upon the quiet and safe environment- the major reason for our choosing to build in this area.
    * the reaction to previous concerns and council meeting discussions to a prior application by the occupants was for them to apparently totally ignore both and to proceed with unauthorized ceremonies on the site. This indicates an arrogance and flagrant disregard for legal protocols hardly likely to instill confidence that this photographic application is not merely the first step in a larger ceremony business plan.
    * the breaching of council regulations for the operation of such a business- so that the applicants are asking to change residential zoning status to our area and also to change the rules under which this business will then operate.

  16. In Whitebridge NSW on “Multiple dwelling housing,...” at 142 Dudley Road, Whitebridge NSW 2290:

    STUART Lowndes commented

    Dear Lake Macquarie City Council,

    I am very concerned with the proposed development slated for DA/1774/2013 and the 89 dwellings to go in there.

    My objections include:

    1. Traffic and parking congestion that is already significant, there is no plans to alleviate this problem around Lonus Avenue, Bulls garden road, Kopa Street and Dudley road. This is particularly bad at school commuting times and increased traffic will add to the pedestrian risk in the area particularly to younger members of our community.

    2. Over development out of keeping with the area.

    3. Risk to native fauna such as the endangered squirrel glider native to the area.

    4. Lack of green space for residents in the proposed development.

    I strongly object to the development in its current form and unless significant improvements are made to existing infrastructure such as roads and transport and the number of dwellings proposed is significantly decreased.

    Kind Regards,

    Stuart Lowndes

  17. In Beaconsfield WA on “Two storey Grouped Dwelling” at 60 Jean Street Beaconsfield WA 6162:

    daniel Svensson commented


    Im concerned over this application that I will have the two storey building over looking my property.

    I will need the plans for this property dwelling please or where can I get them?


  18. In Wellington Point QLD on “Demolition of existing...” at 580 Main Road, Wellington Point, QLD:

    Alison Woodley commented

    There doesn't appear to be a dwelling at this address.

  19. In Preston VIC on “A medium density housing...” at 27 Murphy Grove Preston VIC 3072:

    Lina Mastroianni commented

    This proposed development will have a serious and detrimental impact on the residence standard of living and totally destroy Murphy Grove’s beautiful and serene surroundings.

  20. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of house at 117...” at 117 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, NSW:

    Mandy Crowley commented

    Having read many of the comments about development proposal DAO413/15 I must say I agree completely with many of the objections. Merrivale Lane will be unable to copy with the additional traffic and much of the wildlife in this peaceful area will be impacted.

    I frequently walk our dogs around the Turramurra/Pymble area and there are at least three other child care centres being built or updated in very close proximity to this proposed child care centre.

    I am not against child care centres in residential areas however I feel the appropriateness of the surrounding area should be taken into consideration. I do not feel that a quiet residential street (such as Merrivale Lane) is an appropriate place to build a new 150 place child care centre.

  21. In Darlinghurst NSW on “Section 96 modification of...” at 169-173 Darlinghurst Road Darlinghurst NSW 2010:

    Dr Tony Hunt commented

    I believe that a nightclub being open past 1am in a high density residential area is ludicrous.
    It is after this time that alcohol and drug fuelled violence peaks and the locals, as usual, suffer.
    My interest is because my daughter is one of those local residents.

  22. In Toogoom QLD on “Impact Assessment -...” at 482 O'regan Creek Road, Toogoom, QLD:

    Janice & Ross Breedon commented

    We Ross & Janice Breedon have seen first hand the residents of 482 O` regan Creek Rd
    entering properties checking for unlocked house windows & car doors of our neighbors &
    removing items from their patio tables that don`t belong to them. This makes us feel very uncomfortable about going out & leaving our homes unattended which is affecting our peaceful lifestyle that we purchased along with our property that we valued until this so called halfway house with their "residents" arrived.
    We would like to decline the proposed change so we can feel safe & comfortable again.

  23. In South Yarra VIC on “Construction of a 7-8...” at 230 Toorak Road, South Yarra, VIC:

    Glenys Richards commented

    I would like to register my opposition to the proposed development of 230 Toorak Road South Yarra.
    This development is not in keeping with the streetscape of the area.
    38 Chambers Street will be dramatically affected by the reduction of light to the building, particularly its South East aspect.
    It appears there is insufficient provision for parking in the plans for 230 Toorak Road. This locale already suffers from inadequate space for on street parking and likewise suffers severe problems with major traffic congestion in very narrow streets and laneways.
    This can then become hazardous to the pedestrian population in the area.

  24. In Northcote VIC on “Demolition of the existing...” at 16 Separation Street Northcote VIC 3070:

    Rane Bowen commented

    I feel that a 4 story building in this part of the street in such a small property will stick out like a sore thumb and change the character of the street in a negative way. Having a restaurant here will increase the foot traffic at night, making for much noisier evenings.

  25. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of house at 117...” at 117 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, NSW:

    John Douglas commented

    I am advised that only 26 staff will be monitoring 150 children. I have a friend working in this industry and she has advised they are required to have 12 staff for 36 children i.e. 1 staff for 3 children. The proposed development appears to be 1 staff per 6 children. I suspect that ancillary staff have not been noted in the application
    There is parking proposed for 20 staff in the underground car park of 38 spaces. At least 6 staff will be parking in the LANE and obviously they will park as close to the centre as possible. Merrivale Lane is a narrow thoroughfare only 3 car widths wide. At best 2 cars can pass each other when a third car is legally parked. With parked cars on both sides of the road, as is currently allowed, traffic will be reduced to a single lane - a nightmare for both residents and parents dropping off children. Exiting from a resident's driveway will be restricted by parked vehicles on either side of the LANE.


    Travelling North, access to Merrivale Lane from Pentecoste Avenue is a blind right turn to oncoming traffic. In the afternoon the western sun causes even more vision problems. There have been many accidents at this location over the years I have been a resident of the area.
    With a number of other childcare centres in the immediate vicinity, I do not believe this location is the correct place for a childcare centre of this magnitude.


  26. In Petersham NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 158 New Canterbury Road Petersham NSW 2049:

    mark matheson commented

    Is this a brothel or a hotel?

    Tiny units with double beds but insufficient room to live in.

  27. In Petersham NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 158 New Canterbury Road Petersham NSW 2049:

    J. O'Callaghan commented

    I agree with previous concerns raised about this proposed development at 158-160 New Canterbury Rd, Petersham.

    The height of the building and the lack of parking are real issues.

    It will also be out of keeping with the Petersham commercial precinct which many features heritage facades.

  28. In Turramurra NSW on “Demolition of house at 117...” at 117 Merrivale Lane, Turramurra, NSW:

    Rupert Holden commented

    It is disappointing that the Ku-Ring-Gai Council is prepared to let narrow commercial interests affect the amenity and wellbeing of Merrivale Lane's inhabitants.

    I grew up in Merrivale Lane with my three siblings. As children, we played front yard cricket, front yard tag, and front yard soccer with our neighbours - always safe in the knowledge that cars would not be tearing up and down the street. We knew our neighbours personally, and there was a real sense of community that I was extremely glad to be a part of. I am certain that the installation of a 150-place child care centre would destroy the neighbourly spirit that was such an important part of my childhood, and leave no prospect for future generations of children in Merrivale Lane to grow up around the same tranquil surroundings that I did.

    I have two principal concerns about the RMEGA Child Care Centre. The first is safety, and the second is destruction of ammenities.

    Turning first to safety, Merrivale Lane is narrow, and already becoming overpopulated with cars parked on both sides of the street. This is particularly dangerous for cars turning off from Pentecost Avenue (a busy road leading on to Merrivale Lane) where cars often turn only to find themselves needing to break abruptly in order to prevent rear-ending a parked car at the beginning of the lane, totally hidden from view. This particular safety hazard, even though dangerous in the first instance, is likely to become even more so when there is increased congestion on Merrivale Lane, brought about by the Child Centre.

    Turning now to amenities. I have two concerns in this respect:

    First, the noise pollution will be intolerable. 150 young children screaming and playing throughout the day can hardly be considered reasonable in a lane environment. It is also completely incongruous with the retirement centre that is only a few doors down. Many residents on Merrivale Lane either don't work during the day, or are retired, and as such, are entitled to a level of external noise that is reasonable for a suburban lane. I put it to the council that it is wholly unreasonable to expect Merrivale Lane's residents to withstand an extra 150 voices. Additionally, the bustle of traffic, cars screaming past all the time on the street is only likely to add to the din.

    Second, many houses in Merrivale Lane enjoy a beautiful view over Pymble golf course. a tall building and multi-storey carpark in the vicinity will destroy that particular amenity for many inhabitants.

    On a final note, I wish to add that my grandmother resides in Merrivale Lane, in a separate home to my family home. She has recently spent months in hospital. Whilst recovering, she remains frail and in need of regular care and treatment. Her home would be exactly opposite the new complex. The congestion will affect her welfare, her access to help, and her confidence in leaving her drawing room to spend time outdoors.

    This is a nice street with good people. We are not cranks - and these complaints are not frivolous. We care about the communities that have been created in Merrivale Lane, which often pass back over generations. We do not want an impersonal corporate enterprise polluting the fair shades of Merrivale Lane, and I hope that the Council will take the resident's unanimous displeasure seriously.

  29. In Petersham NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 158 New Canterbury Road Petersham NSW 2049:

    Sharon F. commented

    I agree with Jordan's comment above.
    The height and shadowing is not fair on neighbouring properties.
    24 boarding rooms with only what appears to be five, perhaps seven at the most, parking spaces? Will it be a requirement that says applicants may not own cars because I don't know where you expect people to park. This is also not in keeping with the general appearance of the local area. Five stories is too high.
    I feel sorry for the neighbours of this property if this goes ahead.

  30. In Newtown NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 43 Enmore Road Newtown NSW 2042:

    Daniel Chambers commented

    The Starr-Bowkett building does not fit with the rest of the street. It is a waste of space to have a single storey building on the high street. I'm aware that a building that most people consider modern and ugly will take it's place, but I don't see this as any worse than the building in it's current state. I think a lot of people are rightly proud of the ideals that the defunct Starr-Bowkett society stands for. Using this as a reason to preserve a building that no longer has any real connection to that philosophy does not make sense. Ideas live on, even if physical things change.

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