Recent comments

  1. In Camberwell VIC on “Demolition of an existing...” at 851 Burke Road Camberwell VIC 3124:

    Terry Dear wrote to local councillor Jack Wegman

    This site has been in limbo for so long - I do think the owners should have been held to account for it's deterioration which has gone on for far too many years. It seems that this is a strategy that if you let a building languish for long enough without any attention then it will be deemed to have no heritage value as it is now delelict.
    I am astonished that a building listed on the National Trust is allowed to be demolished.
    It is irreplacable and whatever is proposed to replace it can in no way have more community or civic value than one of the few great facades left on this road. It is also an exemplar facade from this era from well known architects - surely one of the best examples of its kind. This has always been the criteria that is used - the best of the era.
    Are we to keep nothing from our past?
    Is another faceless apartment building with shops at street level and compromised parking really the best outcome from this site?
    The facade must be kept.
    To not keep it is an act of vandalism.

    Delivered to local councillor Jack Wegman. They are yet to respond.

  2. In Woongarrah NSW on “128 lot residential...” at 77 Sparks Road Woongarrah NSW 2259:

    Adel Vera Firth-Mason commented

    All I ask, as I have before, is for variety in house designs and park or reserve areas set apart for people to enjoy.

  3. In Camberwell VIC on “Demolition of an existing...” at 851 Burke Road Camberwell VIC 3124:

    John C Templin wrote to local councillor Coral Ross

    I can not believe what the council has allowed to happen on Burke Road. This property had a previous permit application to create a boutique hotel. The property has been allowed to decay over the intervening years. Now there is another application to completely demolish the building and create a structure that will most likely be so out of keeping with the street frontage.
    The owners of this property have been allowed to leave it decay, now there is an application for development with a further reduction to parking required has been requested.
    The adjoining business has already expanded with the council granting parking concessions so that the area nearby is further impacted.
    When does the council finally have to answer to the majority of rate payers who live in the area because of the community feel that used to exist

    Photo of Coral Ross
    Coral Ross local councillor for Boroondara City Council
    replied to John C Templin

    Boroondara Council has received a new application for the development of this site, which will be considered following the required public notice period. The application includes both the Sofia's restaurant site and the adjacent State Savings Bank site.
    The application proposes to retain the existing State Savings Bank heritage façade.
    I agree that the current presentation of the State Savings Bank site is disappointing but there is no legislation which gives Council the authority or ability to take action in these circumstances. However, Council has ensured that the façade does not constitute a risk to public safety.

    Key aspects of the current application include:
    Demolition of the existing Sofia's Restaurant building
    Retention of the State Saving Bank façade
    Construction of a nine storey building (which includes three levels of basement parking);
    Ground floor of the building to accommodate a wine bar, café and a restaurant
    The remaining floors contain 59 dwellings including dwellings with 2 and 3 bedrooms, plus a penthouse of four bedrooms;
    Level 6 of the building includes a communal dining room and roof deck;
    There are 3 levels of basement parking with access from the western title boundary. The car park contains 84 car parking spaces.

    Coral Ross
    Gardiner Ward councillor
    City of Boroondara

  4. In Lindisfarne TAS on “Canopy - D” at 36 Lincoln Street, Lindisfarne, TAS:

    Peter Lawler commented

    What a truly ugly part of the village this street corner has become. I see nothing in this application that will improve the village aesthetic and arguably will degrade it further by encouraging a business to not seriously consider community desires for the visual appeal of a street-scape.

  5. In Chippendale NSW on “Bacon Brewfest 27/02/2016 -...” at 28 Broadway, Chippendale 2008:

    Mitchell Stevens commented

    I think this is a good idea. Other F&B events (like the markets) have been run in this area in the past and it fits in well with the neighbourhood. I can't see that it would impinge upon anyone else's enjoyment of the area.

  6. In Saratoga NSW on “2 X Residential Flat...” at 15 Mimosa Avenue, Saratoga NSW 2251:

    Jacqui Bell commented

    I object to this development for a number of reasons:
    1. the increased traffic around this already busy intersection will pose a risk to not only motorists using this intersection and accessing the shops, but also to the many pedestrians using these two streets to access the village shops (primarily elderly, families and children)
    2. While technically zoned for 'B1 Neighbourhood' use, this building won't be for community/neighbourhood use, it will be a residential building and used only by those residences. The proposed building is out of character for the suburb compared to other residential buildings (in its style, density and 3 storey appearance) and will not reflect the style (mostly 1-2 storey, single dwelling blocks) of the suburb.
    3. A building such as this sets a precedence for high density, multi storey development in the suburb. While technically 'it doesn't feel right for the suburb' isn't a breach of a specific code it is probably what is at the heart of the matter for many residents. People choose to live in this suburb for the way it looks and feels - it's about the 'village' and the family atmosphere, the local shops, it's about community, and a high density apartment block is not concurrent with the look & feel of the suburb and will greatly change the landscape of our much loved suburb.

  7. In Gateshead NSW on “Garage” at 21 Alder Crescent, Gateshead NSW 2290:

    Beth Lane commented

    When the illegal development on this property began early in 2015 excavation was carried out on the boundary line of our adjoining downhill sloping land. The "retaining wall" that they then constructed was not even built up to the same height as it previously was, I have photographs of the exposed fence posts they uncovered in their excavation. Consequently my land and fence is collapsing into the void that is left where there used to be land. I think this should be rectified before consideration of approving the illegal works to continue. I didn't think people were allowed to excavate on boundary lines, especially without even consulting the owner of the adjoining land or considering the effects that the excavating had regarding collapsing the neighbours land.

  8. In Chippendale NSW on “Bacon Brewfest 27/02/2016 -...” at 28 Broadway, Chippendale 2008:

    Max Davies commented

    Not a bad idea. Looks like a good place for some meat and beers with the boys!

  9. In Chippendale NSW on “Bacon Brewfest 27/02/2016 -...” at 28 Broadway, Chippendale 2008:

    Katie Chrystal commented

    Such a great spot! Would be amazing if it was licensed so we could have a couple of casual drinks with our friends and family.

  10. In Wahroonga NSW on “Demolition of 3 x single...” at 14 Neringah Avenue Sth, Wahroonga, NSW:

    Phillip Bourne commented

    I'm unsure of the motivation of the developers , but I suspect it's not for the amenity of local residences.
    Whilst there is a need for some urban consolidation, the height of this development is completely out of step with other developments along the rail corridor of Ku-ring-gai Council.
    Given the topography of the location, 5 storey development would have an overwhelming impact on heritage homes in that area. Recent developments in Coonabarabran Rd near the Post office seemed much more in-tune with the amenity of the area.
    Additionally, traffic and parking in and around the particular area is congested enough at present without significant additional load this represents.
    I have lived within 2kms of this site for over 40 Years and I'm opposed to the giddy pursuit of profit corrupting what is a quite and peaceful village community.
    I believe this should be rejected by council and a more sympathetic development requested.

  11. In Ettalong Beach NSW on “Mixed Residential &...” at 218 Memorial Avenue, Ettalong Beach NSW 2257:

    K. Sutton commented

    Can only be good for the area. I really don't see that it will take anything away from the site. We need to create jobs and income to stop shops and local businesses from failing locally. We have to move with the times.
    Hopefully the local infrastructure needs will be addressed by council, considering the large contribution I imagine they will get from a development of this size.

  12. In Wentworth Falls NSW on “Change of use to a...” at 33 Station Street, Wentworth Falls, NSW:

    Marlene Jones commented

    Interested in receiving more information on this please.

  13. In Meadowbank NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 123 Bowden St, Meadowbank, NSW Australia:

    Huw Edwards commented

    This is just more over development without any consideration for infrastructure or amenity of existing residents. The area is already struggling with the number of people and the total developments planned for the area are not even half done.

    The quality of developments has also dropped with recent building been very poorly finished and not fitting into any sort of overall look for the area. It means the whole suburb is turning into a messy eyesore.

    Frankly the council fought against over development for the major foreshore works when it did not have control of the decision making process but it seems to be happy for it to occur provided it gives the approval.

  14. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 1 Charlotte Avenue Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Gavin Costello commented

    I endorse this application. Congratulations to marrickville council for encouraging low cost and affordable housing in an area close to where jobs are located.

  15. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Development of eighteen...” at 4 Heath Street, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    Frank Pirro commented

    I am totally against Triple story dwellings in a not suitable area as there is not next to a main road,removable of Vegetation what?no privacy for other established dwellings.Problems will be created,open space disappearing,parking problems,Pollution.I hope that the project does not get approved,but then again only the moreland council can create problems by setting a precedent for Pascoe Vale (new name Unit Vale ) to approve the project create problems because they (councillers dont live in the area)so dont worry you love creating a Developer`s Paradise.You collect extra Rates and we long established ratepayers Choke.Well done Moreland Council .

  16. In Lindisfarne TAS on “Canopy - D” at 36 Lincoln Street, Lindisfarne, TAS:

    Mark Duffett commented

    This garish establishment really detracts from the otherwise attractive renovation of the Lindisfarne village streetscape. This opportunity should be taken to require the proprietors to tone down their colour scheme, or at least vastly reduce the external area of 'Lemon Yellow'.

  17. In Camberwell VIC on “Demolition of an existing...” at 851 Burke Road Camberwell VIC 3124:

    John Maidment commented

    This is a very significant bank facade designed by the noted architects Sydney Smith & Ogg in Romanesque revival style. With the former ES&A Bank (now the Meat and Wine Company) this is the most important architectural heritage item in the Burke Road shopping precinct. The firm also designed other bank buildings in Swan Street, Richmond, Yarraville, commercial buildings and hotels but this is the major example of its work in Boroondara. It is unthinkable that it should be demolished and could be sensitively retained within a development of the site.

  18. In Kirrawee NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 37 Fauna Pl Kirrawee 2232:

    Mr Aitken commented

    My main concern is how is something of this stature, going to create good traffic flow. I live in the street and am guttered that such a beautiful place is going to turn into a catastrophic eye sore filled with people who dont care about the place.

  19. In Marrickville NSW on “To demolish existing...” at 1 Charlotte Avenue Marrickville NSW 2204:

    Stephan commented

    Boarding House? Can we have more explanation on who will be in the boarding house ,ie students facility or non-income earners.
    Am particular concerned as who will be placed within the planned development having recently purchased a street away.

    Also agree with above can you also confirm the amount of car spaces that will be available within this complex.

  20. In Wahroonga NSW on “Demolition of 3 x single...” at 14 Neringah Avenue Sth, Wahroonga, NSW:

    Michael McAuliffe commented

    Ku-ring-gai council has done a good job in preserving heritage properties and conservation areas further down the north shore.
    It is important to ensure that the heritage houses are not overwhelmed by inappropriate development.
    Five story flats immediately adjacent to heritage properties is completely inappropriate.
    I'm concerned that we are allowing heritage areas to be overwhelmed in the same way that Hornsby council has allowed.
    Wahroonga traffic is already atrocious. I think we need some real town planning here.

  21. In Wahroonga NSW on “Demolition of 3 x single...” at 14 Neringah Avenue Sth, Wahroonga, NSW:

    Andrew C Stiff commented

    I have received notification from you regarding application DA 611/15, regarding 14-18 Neringah Ave Sth.
    I reside at 10 Warwilla Ave, in a heritage listed home, one of three such in a line. I have lived here for 17 years and spent considerable time, money and effort in restoring and maintaining my home, ( circa 1880-90 )
    This is a family friendly area, with backyards which provide space for children to grow and play.
    Previous development in this vicinity has been limited to two and three storeys ; the proposed five storeys is not consistent with the area . The recently built flats at Wahroonga shops are not five storeys in a location where no single dwellings are affected, and it is unreasonable to allow this next to my house.
    This proposal would be a massive overdevelopment of the site, which will dwarf my home and overlook my backyard which is currently private.
    It will also add a great number of extra vehicle movements to an area that experiences considerable congestion, at peak times it is gridlocked.
    Parking is at a premium here because of our location near the train station ,Abbotsleigh Junior School and Neringah hospital; adding more vehicles will worsen the traffic problems and heighten safety concerns; there are lots of children moving to and fro the school, commuters accessing the station., and residents using the village shops.
    In conclusion this is an inappropriate development which is bad for our neighbourhood ,residents and community, and only benefits the developer. I urge you to not allow this.

  22. In Invermay TAS on “Visitor Accommodation -...” at 87 Lindsay Street Invermay TAS 7248:

    Julie Lawson commented

    I write regarding DA0660/2015, and wish to express my concerns about the visual impact of this development on the area. I have a house in Invermay which is currently tenanted, but which I intend to live in in the future.

    The bulk and scale of this development seems to be out of proportion with the area. Whilst the silos are quite tall, the building increases the size of them and additionally adds bulk to the building envelope. It is an overdevelopment of a site, and is not suitable for the area, given that pretty much the whole of Launceston faces towards this building.

    I have no problems with the traffic and parking matters, which seems to have occupied most of the development application paperwork.

    While it would be beneficial to have new accommodation and business function options in Launceston, this can be achieved on a more low-rise scale than what is proposed.

    Please don't let Launceston become overdeveloped like Sydney.

    Thank you for your time.

  23. In Saratoga NSW on “2 X Residential Flat...” at 15 Mimosa Avenue, Saratoga NSW 2251:

    Suzy Klabbers commented

    So granny flats popping up everywhere in Sara,Davo and Yatta are OK,but this isn't ????,get real !!!

  24. In Erskineville NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 11A John Street Erskineville NSW 2043:

    Desmond O'Gorman commented

    Just a quick note with the link which I forgot to include in my comment above. See here for the parking study:

  25. In Erskineville NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 11A John Street Erskineville NSW 2043:

    Desmond O'Gorman commented

    My worry is that this development will likely exacerbate an already difficult parking situation on Charles street and the adjacent streets. It currently is frequently difficult to find a spot. I refer you to a parking study carried out in Erskineville in 2012, that suggests the mosque is at least partly responsible for the difficulty.
    I would object also to the scale and context of the development in that a sizeable 3 story non residential building that fronts onto the pathway is not the precedent that I would like to see set in what is otherwise a 1-2 story, quiet residential street.
    Thank you

  26. In Haymarket NSW on “Demolition of the existing...” at 410 Pitt Street Haymarket NSW 2000:

    Sue Ostler commented

    The following is a response to the amended DA, made public on Jan 4, 2016.

    Trouble in Chinatown
    Today’s newspaper headlines are full of the news that Belmore Park otherwise known as Tent City opposite Central Station is out of control. Those who have set up camp show no sign of moving. Security guards are now allegedly deployed to man the area 24-hours a day to deal with the violence, alcohol and drugs in this homeless enclave.
    This is exactly one block away from where we live at the Miramar Apartments on the southern end of Pitt Street, between Goulburn and Campbell, a block which has an ugly history of its own.

    Overrun with backpackers and young party people who frequently clash with the transient and homeless who gravitate towards our block and lump together outside the West End backpackers’ hostel, attracted by the wafting fragrance of marijuana and the free flowing alcohol, openly using our driveway and mailboxes as toilets and inciting anti-social behaviour. This all happening in the very same location where a scene of horrific violence erupted during a triple stabbing two years ago. But regardless of countless complaints and letters to the council (including written submissions by myself), no effort has been made to turn the area into an ‘Alcohol Free Zone’.

    In spite of this out-of-control scene, plans are afoot for a 33-storey super skinny Shanghai style skyscraper budget hotel to be sandwiched as tight as the proverbial in between the original residential buildings and the infamous West End hostel. With a mind-bogglingly narrow 6.4m frontage and capacity of 180 rooms and up to four to five hundred occupants, the extra volume of people will put a massive burden on this pressure-cooker situation - especially when those four to five hundred people are likely to be backpackers – more backpackers! Developer Dean Rzechta, managing director of Ninety Four Feet, said himself in a recent interview that the budget hotel “is to be aimed at younger travellers.”

    We have to ask ourselves why?

    it simply because a Melbourne development company saw an opportunity to make a few bucks when they ran out of sites in Melbourne?

    mean come on! The erection of random sky-high pencil thin building such as this shows a complete lack of regard for its neighbouring occupants. With a devastating loss of amenity: privacy, ventilation, air, sunlight - and of course outlook for the neighbouring buildings - this is a situation reminiscent of the vastly overcrowded cities of Beijing, Macau or Hong Kong - not our own precious downtown Sydney!
    Imagine the noise pollution and loss of air, light, ventilation, daylight, privacy and outlook based on inadequate space between buildings - and that’s just at sky level! At street level things will be total madness.

    Did I mention that the proposed tower provides absolutely no onsite car parking? Do you have any idea what this will do to our streetscape? In a densely overbuilt area known for its budget accommodation where none of the existing backpackers offer parking, it’s sheer madness. Added to the existing traffic congestion in an already overextended block of Pitt Street and what you get is a real bottleneck situation (keep in mind that Pitt Street is nothing like its neighbouring George Street with its broad three lanes. It's one single lane up and one single lane down up until it hits Goulburn Street, and then it’s one way from there all the way to the Pitt Street Mall). And let’s not forget the recent diversion of every George Street bus route which have doubled the traffic flow on Pitt Street – all of this and we’re talking about a street that is not much wider than a city laneway!

    Picture the traffic congestion made by coaches, taxis and service vehicles all converging together to result in chaos alongside an already inadequate area for servicing and waste management utilities. Throw in the congested pedestrian traffic with all manner of transport vehicles and bicycles parked along the kerb-side while visitors come to and from the hotel, waiting for the airport shuttle, their luggage left strewn across the pavement as they straggle across the driveway of the Miramar, blocking primary access and exit points for the residents’ vehicles - and what you get is a very ugly picture.

    And while we appreciate that the current situation at 410 Pitt Street is not a desirable one, we do not wish to substitute one bad situation with a far worse one!
    When the developers initially proposed a 3-star hotel development, residents and neighbours were stunned and took action. An objection was promptly lodged to council and an appeal to the Land and Environments Court was the response.

    The DA has since come back with a vengeance with only a couple of token amendments: it has lopped a couple of floors off the top and plans to be a mere two storeys shorter with a nod to greater sunlight. Bravo. It has also apparently addressed rehousing for the otherwise homeless men residing in the Cosy Private Hotel which will be promptly demolished should the DA go ahead. That however, remains to be seen! Perhaps the evicted men will end up sleeping in our driveway, overlooked and undetected in-between all the pandemonium. Either way, none of this is any comfort to those hundreds of Miramar residents whose south facing windows will become walls - completely blacked out by a towering chunk of concrete.

    for us our home-in-the-sky sits right alongside the proposed building site. Our principal living-room and third bedroom windows are south facing, as is our open balcony. According to diagrams, the proposed development will be within approx. 1.5 metres of our balcony, almost within arm’s reach of our main social and recreation area! And what of the hotel’s rooftop our family wonders - will it be an all-night party rooftop, going off right outside our balcony? Or even more foreboding, will it be a plant service area with vast visual bulk and great noise pollution generated from machinery, service utilities, air conditioning plants and more, forcing us to live with closed windows and darkness to escape the noise and air pollution?

    Whatever it will be, the alarming fact is that I could reach out with my son’s pogo stick and touch it.

    It’s funny too, because it’s not often that a city skyscraper is built with a family and kids in mind. We usually hear about homes-in-the-sky with sprawling master suites for adults. Yet three generations of the Lee family have lived happily on the 37th floor at the Miramar Apartments in Sydney’s Pitt Street over the past twenty years. Now, together with a seventeen-month old toddler, property developers threaten to drive our family away.

    A very distressing thought.

    Our home is our sanctuary, and with that comes security and community. Who says you can’t have community whilst living in the CBD? If you’ve ever lived in Chinatown you would know that for the most part, it’s a haven of friendliness. A buzzing, bustling mecca where concierge, cleaners, receptions, real-estate agents and building managers sing out sunny greetings each time they pass by, and neighbours stop to say hello and offer a hand with shopping bags and prams. Lush, vibrant gardens thrive happily in the challenged conditions of the uppermost sky-high floors and there’s plenty of smiles between locals and shop-keepers, suppliers and servicemen - especially if you have a baby in tow as this writer does.

    But if you had of asked me during the pregnancy how we would go living in the sky with a bub, I just couldn't get my head around it.

    How could I?

    I had grown up with the quintessential backyard teeming with dogs, cats, mini- bikes, over-the-fence paddocks and even a pony. Surely this was the Great Australian dream.
    How could our son grow up without experiencing this?

    Seventeen months later and our little boy bounds up and down our long, narrow balcony with quivering excitement, pointing skywards as the overhead airplanes and great flocks of birds glide by. It’s not the leafy green suburbs and there’s no big backyard, but somehow those luminescent sunsets and sunrises and all the drama that comes with the technicolour storms rolling in - and the occasional rainbow-coloured lorikeet perching on the open balcony - make up for that. This is nature from a very different and enviable perspective!

    But all of this could be a distant memory if developers get their way.

    And the question to ask is why?

    It is simply a gross overdevelopment of an unsuitable site seized on by opportunistic developers with consequent unsustainable impacts on the surrounding buildings.
    Surely it is the role of the City of Sydney council to protect its residents from this unsustainable way of life; to promote the ventilation of Central Sydney by allowing the free movement of air flowing freely around city by ensuring that adequate space, air and efficient servicing are part of any new development proposal.
    Surely it is the role of The City to protect residents from the kind of savagery that currently presides over Belmore Park.

    Surely it is their role to keep their residents safe!

    Hundreds of the residents as well as all the Sydney-siders who love our city and wish to preserve its good image have signed our petition and are joining together to support the council in fighting the amended DA. But it’s not just about our lives - the issue of gross overdevelopment without a second thought for residents and ratepayers affects everybody who passes by the southern end of Pitt Street.

    If we don’t jump on it, the Belmore Park syndrome will blowout further down along Pitt Street and end up right on our doorstep. Before-long the thoroughfare from Central Station and down along Pitt Street could become a strip with a dangerous reputation to be avoided at all costs; a situation which will impact on retailers, shopkeepers and service industries - all because of one developer’s greed.

    We urge you to join in the fight to save our great city - don’t let the southern end of Pitt Street become an ugly extension of Belmore Park and don’t let big time developers' ride into Sydney and show us how they think it should be done. Because as non-residents, maybe they don’t really know.Or give a damn.

  27. In Wandin North VIC on “Two lot subdivision...” at 65 De Lancey Road, Wandin North VIC 3139:

    trevor hallum commented

    Would like to know original and new block sizes pls.

  28. In Camperdown NSW on “Demolition of the existing...” at 9-13 Marsden Street Camperdown NSW 2050:

    Stephen Scutts commented

    Great use of older style factory/warehouse. The Uni and hospital need more local accommodation.

  29. In Saratoga NSW on “2 X Residential Flat...” at 15 Mimosa Avenue, Saratoga NSW 2251:

    Tracey Trott commented

    OBJECTION: Consideration needs to be given to the impact on surrounding ratepayers living in Mimosa Ave and Village Road whose numbers far outweigh those catered for in this development.


    The suburbs of Saratoga, Davistown and Yattalunga comprise a unique and enviable community and I feel that, if allowed, this development will set a precedent for other buildings of it's size, or even higher. It would be detrimental to change our landscape and skyline to this extent and to impact the community spirit which is such a part of our small peninsular.

  30. In Saratoga NSW on “2 X Residential Flat...” at 15 Mimosa Avenue, Saratoga NSW 2251:

    Tim Wade commented

    Objection: I am voicing my objection as this will only start to change the very dynamics of this small community to the beginning of commercialising and profiting from something that is the heart of Saratoga, the Village atmosphere.

    The entrance from Village road, I see potentially causing accidents, or mishaps due the close proximity to the bend that backs onto Mimosa Ave. Drivers Entering on Mimosa Ave from Davistown road onto Village Road (natural right turn) will be presented with traffic entering this unit complex. With an increase of traffic use from Mimosa Avenue turning right onto Mimosa (taking you to Davistown Rd) will add greater amount of wear and tear on Mimosa Ave that would appear the infrastructure could not handle.

    Also as there is minimal curbing, drainage on wet days cause the sidings of the road to become wet and unusable for parking, with an increase in visitors using this area for the proposed units makes available spaces for current tenants of Mimosa unusable.

    With the units being over 14 metres in height will have an impact on dwellings directly behind these units, environmentally as well as cost and comfort. Dwellings also with current water views also behind these proposed units will lose the view that attracted them to Saratoga, or those that had improved their properties in renovating to obtain to increase their water views will also lose this.

    Also the units itself will lower the costs of the houses around them, this alone should be an objection by council.

    This development is the first multi-tenant development request in the area, and needs to be rejected so that Saratoga remains what it is today and the future, a peaceful, single dwelling community spirited village.

    Council needs to decline this application.

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