Recent comments

  1. In Balmain NSW on “Removal of two trees on the...” at 10 Glassop Street Balmain NSW 2041:

    Jo Smith commented

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    I note the application is to remove two trees yet the report only recommends the removal of one tree, that it identifies as being in only "fair" condition.

    Considering the need for trees in the area by wildlife I would hope Council will oppose the removal of the second tree, particularly as there is no report to support this.

    Thank you.

  2. In Glossodia NSW on “Lot 156 DP 214751Caravan Park” at 66 Wattle Crescent, Glossodia, NSW:

    Monique Pryce commented

    HI Council
    I would like to add my voice to those who have already written expressing concerns regarding the caravan park at 66 Wattle Cr. Glossodia.
    I have several concerns regarding transport, lack of amenities and access to services.
    People who may live in this type of housing often have limited access to a car often having to rely on public transport. There is no bus that goes past this property and they will need to walk to Golden Valley Dr - a substantial climb. If these residents have limited mobility this is not an option and a taxi may not be financially viable.

    There are limited facilities in Glossodia. While there is a grocery store they have limited food especially fresh produce which is of questionable quality. For someone with limited mobility who can not access shops further away this is lack of choice is unacceptable.

    People who live in these type of dwellings often need to access employment services, training/education, health and medical practitioners. None of these services are within a distance that can be easily accessed without a private vehicle which can place additional stress in the household.

    This high density development is not in the best interests of the potential residents and should be rejected.

    Monique Pryce

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

    B&S Walsh commented

    Dear Sir/Madam

    We object to the proposed application by Sandstone Point Hotel which would allow for potentially up to 24 concert days per calendar year (12 events, each of a maximum of two days).

    Living in Sandstone Point, our main objections with the proposal are as follows:-
    (i) that the increased number of event days per calendar year will adversely impact on local residents, ourselves included, due to more frequent traffic congestion on Bribie Island Road and East Bestmann Road, and
    (ii) that local residents will experience more frequent noise pollution from the increased number of events.

    The existing number of concert days per year already impacts negatively in the ways described above and we certainly would not want to see that exacerbated.

    Kind Regards

    B&S Walsh

  4. In Redfern NSW on “13-23 Gibbons Street,...” at 13-23 Gibbons Street, Redfern,:

    Jane Seldon commented

    Good gracious, enough already, there is an overwhelming amount of student accommodation in this area, much to the detriment of long term residents and families.
    There is not near the amount a recreational space for any more than already here.
    And if the this greedy governments totally overwhelming concept of what they think is appropriate for Waterloo we shall be the most overcrowded area in Sydney.
    I also see no plans here for either sustainable or low cost housing.
    This to me is another greedy grab by developers to not consider the area but to squeeze every dollar they can for the cheapest possible outlay.
    No matter what you chose to believe there will be extra parking needed and we have no need for more retail. The cafes that are here are more than adequate.
    Just another grab for high rentals.

    Look after the current community, people who have been paying your rates for years, consider the impact of yet another few hundred students and if every second one becomes a food courier we are in trouble.
    Students themselves are lovely but we have no facilities left.

    Dear Planning Minister, I would like to know what you have learnt about planning, human factors, demolition, sustainability, conservation, community needs, recycling, utilities access and over supply.
    Just imagine if your home was inundated in this way how would you feel.?

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

    Gdave commented

    This area is low density area and current traffic condition will be significantly impacted including level of service of the intersection lowered impacting local and state road traffic. We the local resident oppose this development at all cost. This addition will put extra pressure on local school and hospital and can impact life of local resident.

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

    Susan Simmons commented

    I am writing to you about the residence next door that recently has been purchased and turned into a picker house . I'm sure you are aware of the term as their are many of these in the Woolgoolga area . 

    I  rang the council when the house was being renovated to inform them of what was going on and to ask what our rights were. I was told that they couldn't do this without d.a application but as I told them it's happened.  Subsequent council inspection said all good with it . Well done so much for council rules on development . 

    So here is my list of complaints since this picker house has been up and running!

    1. Cars obscuring the vision of a blind corner that is already dangerous from traffic travelling from west to east with no regard to driveways .

    2.Lighting...the house is lit up like a Christmas tree at night which is all on the side of our bedrooms . The back enclosed veranda is all glass and has no window furnishings to block out light at night . The dining room has a blind and is now being pulled down most nights after 2 polite visits to talk to the tenants about the lights being left on all night . Our biggest problem with our loss of wonderfully quiet neighbours is since the garage has been turned in to 2 bedrooms , the window is directly opposite our bathroom window which we now have to be careful in our own home of our state of dress in walking in to our bathroom! We shouldn't have to be concerned about this as it should be a garage window , that's the way house are built to give some privacy to each other .

    3. The house now echo's with the tenants talking at night.  We are assuming because it's all tile and the few blinds aren't enough to muffle the noise of people talking . We had a friend staying with us and told us in the morning he got what we were talking about   it sounds like it's in the room with you . They are up quite late , I am not .

    So in finishing we feel you have failed in yr responsibility in allowing this to occur in neighbourhoods in Woolgoolga so a select few can prosper from this. I realise these people need homes and the farms need workers but the original residents deserve some rights. We didn't buy our house with this business next door and you had better hope it hasn't affected our value .

    Look forward to hearing from you on how you are going to address our issues 

    Susan & Peter Simmons 

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

    Elle commented

    This development is not suitable for this area. The traffic is very congested as it is on this part of Sunnyholt road. It would be more suitable for a smaller development. Units would be more suitably built near the train station not in this location.

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

    Catherine Brice commented

    Dear Sir/Madam, regarding the proposed application please accept this email as a formal objection. As a resident of Bribie Island the increased pressure on infrastructure we already absorb due to events is, in my opinion, untenable. Having to plan around significantly increased travel time & traffic congestion regularly is unfair & shows disregard for the rate payers ability to enjoy what we pay for.
    Kind regards,
    Catherine Brice

  9. In Scoresby VIC on “Construction of one double...” at 9 Denham Court, Scoresby VIC 3179:

    Kevin Leong commented

    The proposed tandem car parking arrangement for both dwellings poses an issue negatively affecting manoeuvrability in the court that already has limited street parking spaces which will be further limited by the provision of a second crossover. Given the impracticality of tandem car spaces, I ask that Council reconsiders the proposed plan and specifies that dual non-tandem car parking is provided for both properties.

  10. In Lewisham NSW on “New Seniors Living Development” at 2B West Street Lewisham:

    Dominic Burg commented

    Our objections are as follows:

    1) Development is out of character of the area
    a. Proposed height is excessive
    i. Height of buildings, by far, exceeds the maximum as stated by the NSW State Government in their planning documents for the adjacent Taverners Hill precinct development

    The State Government’s document Parramatta Road Urban Transformation Precinct ( earmarked a number of areas for increased density development in the Taveners Hill precinct, which we point out is adjacent to but not including the site covered in DA DA201800505. In particular, this document noted that:

    “The leafy, residential and low scale characters south of Parramatta Road in the ‘North Lewisham’ area and north of Parramatta Road between Hathern Street and Lords Roads will be preserved including the pattern of grain, building typology and historic housing character. The established residential character of low scale workers cottages, detached houses and existing property setbacks of the area will be protected and preserved”.

    The document further specifies a maximum height of 6 to 8 stories for such density development, in order to keep with the character of the area and in particular, the Catholic complex and old Lewisham hospital at 2B West Street.

    From the planning document: “B. Building Heights The recommended maximum building heights are shown in Figure 10.18. The tallest buildings permitted will be located on Upward Street and will be up to 32 metres or 8 storeys to reflect the amendments to the local planning controls that have only recently been approved. A 32 metre height control is also recommended for land on Lords Road that is close to the Marion Light Rail stop and other nearby facilities and services such as Kegworth Public School and Leichhardt Marketplace. Building heights along Parramatta Road, Lords Road west of Tebbutt Street, and the southern end of Tebbutt Street and immediately adjacent to Lewisham rail station range from 17 - 21 metres, or 4 - 6 storeys. These parts of the Precinct are best served by existing or proposed public transport and therefore could be appropriate for some intensification. Low scale heights are recommended throughout the remainder of the Precinct. A maximum of 12 metres is suggested to enable infill uplift up to three storeys in select locations.”

    As a final point, 2B West Street is both outside the area the State Government has earmarked for increased density development and precisely the area of historic character the State Government indicated it wished to retain. This development clearly antithetic to the NSW Government’s own planning strategy for this area. The development has the potential to set a dangerous precedent of non compliance with recommendations for any other developments proposed outside and inside the planned development corridors

    The NSW department of Planning and environment in its letter to Mecone ref 16/12501 has further highlighted that this development is not within character of the area and states that the proposal is “excessive in relation to both the site and the wider surrounding built environment and should be reviewed to consider a reduction in height as part of the development application process. Particular consideration should be given to the overall height, bulk and scale of the proposed ‘Building 1’ and ‘Building 2’ in order to provide a more appropriate scale”

    ii. Impact on local skylines
    The local skyline will be significantly impacted by a development of this magnitude, there is no such development of this size within some kilometres of the site. The nearest large development at the old four mill site in Lewisham west is lower in maximum height and is in a natural depression in the landscape. As such the buildings in this development do not dominate the skyline. In contrast the development at 2B West st sits at the apex of a hill and will completely dominate the skyline from many vistas incidentally and deceptively not included in the submitted DA

    b. Environment impact on the native bandicoots including the removal of a significant number of trees and plants. 2B West Street is home to a rare enclave of endangered Long Nose Bandicoots in the Inner West, as reported in the scientific paper The Redacted Threatened Species Report specified that: ‘several threatened species have been identified in proximity to the proposal site’. It is difficult to believe that a development of the magnitude of 2B West street would not impact both the habitat and wellbeing of these species. The development further significantly reduces the vegetation on the site further impacting and limiting potential habitat for threatened species.

    c. Area is full of art deco and Victorian properties, including the 1930 Bandstand in Petersham Park itself, the gothic St Thomas Church and in itself the existing complex is an historic Catholic complex with beautiful churches and sympathic low rise developments.
    The existing block is a historic complex of Catholic buildings across the road from an historic park. The existing block contains two beautiful churches, charming gardens and other lovely details including marble statues and fountain). The statement from the Redacted Heritage Impact statement that ‘The visual impact on the Park will be limited and there is currently medium density development close to the Park’ which is at odds with the fact there is no development within the vicinity that is any larger than 6 stories, with overwhelming heights of 2 stories, whereas development will be directly opposite the park and be an imposing structure in the skyline. It is evident that such a proposed structure on the site would have major impact on the local architecture styles and general feel.

    2) Impact of reflected sound

    The impact of reflected sound from these enormous structures on Railway Terrace residents, Petersham public school and the School of languages from the train and already overwhelming heavy vehicle traffic on railway terrace and west St, will be significant. It is important to note that this traffic is present for roughly 18 hours a day beginning before 5am. The Noise Intrusion Assessment from the Acoustic Report for Site Compatibility Certificate does not consider the impact on Railway Terrace residents of reflected sound of the trains and heavy vehicles against the 2B west St proposed structure. Such an impact would be significant. It is requested such a Noise Intrusion Assessment be conducted considering Railway Terrace, Petersham Primary School, the NSW School of Languages and other local residents.

    3) Development will have a direct impact on my property, it’s views and shadows will be cast on my front yard

    The development will completely dominate the skyline, and in some instances will completely block any visible sky, from all front facing windows of most of the dwellings from 7A to 19 Railway terrace and beyond. Shadows will be cast upon our dwelling and several others, as indicated in the shadowing report, which incidentally only shows studies for one day in the year. No information is given regarding the months and surrounding the winter solstice regarding the number of hours each property will be in shadow

    4) Impact on local amenities, transport, parking and general traffic

    The public amenities, roads, parking and transport in the area are already heavily constrained.

    a. Roads: Several bottlenecks already exist in this area and the roads are in poor condition. The entrance to the west St bridge from railway terrace and Gordon St is already heavily grooved and damaged from high levels of traffic. we are concerned about the impact of increased heavy vehicle traffic form this significant construction, and the ongoing effect of the vehicles form the large number of dwellings and weekend visitations
    b. Public transport. Public transport in the area is already heavily constrained. As an additional point Lewisham railway station is not an accessible station for those with mobility issues. We are concerned that the amenities will not adequately be able to service the resident aged population, placing further pressure on alternate road based transport
    c. Parking: Parking in the area is already heavily constrained, particularly on weekends and weekdays due to transient commuter parking. An enormous aged care facility will place extra burden on parking due to visiting after hours and on weekends.
    d. Public amenities: There are limited amenities such as shops, cafes, green space etc in close proximity to the development, and those that exist are already nearing capacity, particularly on weekends. The impact has been recently steadily increasing due to the developments in Lewisham west area and flour mill precinct. We are concerned about the impact of such a sudden and large increase in the number of residents on local amenities

  11. In Prahran VIC on “Packaged Liquor Licence” at 251 High St, Prahran 3181, VIC:

    Jane McLean commented

    Please no more liquor outlets there are too many in the area already.

  12. In Waverley NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at Waverley Bowling Club 163 Birrell Street Waverley NSW 2024:

    Greg Maidment commented

    I object to this application for the following reasons.

    The area is zoned RE2 which does not permit of the proposal.

    The local road system is inadequate for existing needs. There should be no additional traffic resulting from this or other developments facilitated by Council.

    Birrell, Henrietta and Victoria Sts, Carrington and Bronte Roads are already at saturation levels.

    The proposal is out of character with the area and I note the large number of proposed parking spaces as an indication of traffic expectations.

    On a recent Friday morning it took me 35 minutes plus to drive from Gardyne St Bronte to Bondi Junction with no traffic incident being apparent. This is a result of continued approval of developments which simply detract from the enjoyment of those living here and benefit developers, or in this case Easts Leagues and not the community.

    Then we face the horrors of the construction phase.

  13. In Umina Beach NSW on “Dwelling Addition” at 47 Gwendolen Avenue, Umina Beach NSW 2257:

    Lesley Harvey commented

    When this re-build and granny flat are completed, can the owners plant some shade trees on this old barren block? Council has a list to choose from.
    While it is good to see old housing stock renewed, replacing some of the trees knocked down years ago would greatly enhance this street, especially on the front verge.

  14. In Redfern NSW on “13-23 Gibbons Street,...” at 13-23 Gibbons Street, Redfern,:

    David Glover commented

    As a nearby resident, I'm concerned at the dramatic increase in population with all the student accommodation that's been built or approved.

    There are several hundred units completed and hundreds more already approved. So we simply don't yet know their full impact.

    While I'm certainly not opposed in principle, I feel we should pause on further approvals until those already approved are complete, occupied and we have a better understanding of their impact on the local area.

    I'm also concerned at what may happen if there turns out to be an oversupply of student accommodation and its use changes.

    I note that City of Sydney has approved use of Urbanest on Abercrombie Street as tourist and visitor accommodation outside term time (in spite of their original DA having an explicit condition that this would not happen). I have very serious concerns about student accommodation intended for full-time occupancy being used for tourist accommodation with its frequent arrivals and departures. I note that none of the current or planned buildings have any provision for off-street vehicle access. So all the arrivals, departures, luggage, tour groups etc happens on the street (often double-parked). This is both inconvenient and unsafe. And it's happening right now with Urbanest on Abercrombie.

    Ideally, let's pause before approving yet more of this type of use to give us time to properly understand its impact.

    If not, I would strongly recommend this and all plans include provision for loading and unloading passengers on the site rather than on the road to at least reduce the disruption and improve the safety of this.

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

    glenn buckley commented

    I believe this development will be of great benefit to the local town and will provide an economic stimulus to the community via its construction and on going spending by residents. The development is in keeping with the City council;s master plan objectives for the area and adheres to all current council codes.
    It will provide accommodation for seniors which is located on flat ground and it will be easily accessable to shopping,public transport, medical facilities and social facilities such as Clubs and restaurants.
    i fully support this development as it believe it will enhance the viability and local amenity of Woolgoolga.

  16. In Bentleigh East VIC on “Construction of a part...” at 801 Centre Road Bentleigh East VIC 3165:

    Barry Lewis commented

    Enough all ready!
    When will Glen Eira learn that with all the reduction in parking requirements there will be no ware for the customers let alone for the tenants and residents of the area.

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

    Eleanor Pike commented

    As a resident in Northcote Road, we will be impacted by the potential loss of car parking in our already busy street. The size and density of this proposed building is inappropriate for the area.

  18. In Bentleigh East VIC on “Construction of a part...” at 801 Centre Road Bentleigh East VIC 3165:

    CATHY WILLIAMS commented

    Car Parking is at a premium with all the new apartments and housing going up.

    The reduction of standard car parking is not acceptable any more. Developers should be made to supply more parking for their developments.

  19. In Waverley NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at Waverley Bowling Club 163 Birrell Street Waverley NSW 2024:

    Mario Da Silva commented

    I object to this proposed demolition of the bowling club and construction of 4 buildings (90 senior apartments), child care and 2 level underground car park for 298 car spaces. Why do 90 apartments & child care facility require 298 car spaces?

    The applicant is rushing thru the DA as their Site Compatibility Certificate (SCC) issued by Dept of Planning & Environment will expire on 25 Sept 2019. If DA is not approved they would need to lodge another DA (3rd one) before this date otherwise the SCC for senior accomodation will lapse.

    The proposed use for seniors living accommodation is not permitted under RE2 and a separate DA for the change of use will need to be lodged.

    What happens if DA approval is not obtained for the change of use? Do the buildings revert to residential use for commercial benefit of the applicant to use/dispose as they choose? Is EASTS lodging a DA for aged care accommodation under false pretenses only for it to "revert to residential use"?

    This proposal does not comply with Waverley LEP and RE2 zoning and is listed as an item of local heritage significance on Schedule 5 of the Waverley LEP. More trees will be removed and loss of more green space.

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

    Dorothy Williams commented

    I was at the meeting, one of only 4 residents - do they deliberately hold these meetings at a time when most people are unable to attend?
    The developer's Town Planner was very reasonable in all his responses to the questions, until he tried to wrap up, saying he thought he'd addressed all the questions, when he clearly had not! The biggest question of them all, by everyone present, was in regard to the huge height discrepancy between the current 19 metre allowance and their nearly 27 metre proposal. We all quickly reminded him, needless to say!
    In short, his response was that it was inevitable that all surrounding sites would be developed to this height.
    They applauded themselves for the fact that they were not planning to build shoe box sized apartments and that they were aiming for the higher end of the market.
    I'm not sure how much difference that will make to the precinct when you no longer have any sky or natural light and the southerlies whistle down the wind tunnels of this lane!

  21. In Leichhardt NSW on “Mixed used development...” at 42-48 John Street Leichhardt NSW 2040:

    Anne Achie commented

    I am extremely concerned about this development going ahead. John Street is a small, narrow and with limited parking. The area is already at capacity with parking and congestion with the auction house and other commercial activity occurring very close to a lot of homes.

    The proposed development would contribute to noise pollution, congestion, parking difficulties already experienced by residents and should not go ahead.

  22. In Clifton Hill VIC on “Full demolition of existing...” at 64 The Esplanade Clifton Hill VIC 3068:

    Nick Merrylees wrote to local councillor Stephen Jolly

    I wonder why I wasn't notified before planning approval was given. I live 3 doors away. I am unable to find the plans online. I live in a heritage overlay area. The new building is 2 stories, where the previous was 1. My understanding is that at least the front of the house cannot be demolished as it will change the facade. The whole house is now demolished with front garden tree removed. When the new dwelling is constructed, it had better look the same from the street. If the street facade has now changed I will be livid.

    Photo of Stephen Jolly
    Stephen Jolly local councillor for Yarra City Council
    replied to Nick Merrylees

    Let me check

    Get Outlook for iOS
    From: <> on behalf of Nick Merrylees <>
    Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 8:24:01 AM
    To: Jolly, Stephen Cr
    Subject: Planning application at 64 The Esplanade Clifton Hill VIC 3068

    I wonder why I wasn't notified before planning approval was given. I live 3 doors away. I am unable to find the plans online. I live in a heritage overlay area. The new building is 2 stories, where the previous was 1. My understanding is that at least the front of the house cannot be demolished as it will change the facade. The whole house is now demolished with front garden tree removed. When the new dwelling is constructed, it had better look the same from the street. If the street facade has now changed I will be livid.

    From Nick Merrylees to local councillor Stephen Jolly


    Nick Merrylees posted this message to you on PlanningAlerts in response to the following planning application.

    Your reply, and any other response to this email, will be sent to Nick Merrylees and posted on the PlanningAlerts website publicly.

    Planning Application for 64 The Esplanade Clifton Hill VIC 3068

    Description: Full demolition of existing dwelling and construction of one double-storey dwelling.

    Read more and see what others have to say here:

    Best wishes,


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

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

    Please consider the environment before printing this email.

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

    Soren-Dane Homme commented

    My objection to the proposal, as already stated, lewisham & petersham stations are not being upgraded with lifts, making access to trains some what problematic for elderly,mobility restricted or disabled persons, it’s higher by two storeys than what exists at lewisham west, and on a rise in topography, the shadow of the 12 & 9 storey towers I’ll impact on sunlight to Marist school behind sight with vitamin d levels already an issue for kids. One bus route that’s not that regular. No nearby shopping, there’s market place, but doubt those living in development will opt to walk it.

    No social housing aspect to proposal.
    No upgrade to intersection at west street & overhead railway bridge. And from the artist impression given, just plain ugly.

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

    Gail Bell commented

    I am a resident at Silvershores Caravan Park. Getting out & in the park at any given time is hard. When events are held at the Sandstone Point Hotel we are prisoners. Please do not allow an increase in events

  25. In Somerville VIC on “The development of four (4)...” at 1146 Frankston Flinders Road, Somerville, VIC:

    Steve Roadnight commented

    Once its gone, anothe piece of history is gone just so a profesional developer can make more money. The developer does not care, they live elsewhere. let him tear down the house nextdoor to where they live and put units there.... like hell they would.

  26. In Tamarama NSW on “Remove One (1) native tree...” at 1/19 Wonderland Avenue Tamarama NSW 2026:

    virginia commented

    It is true that trees are not necessarily planted in the right locations however, it is also true that it is too easy to propose the removal of trees rather than taking steps to ensure their protection.Furthermore those commenting who don't necessarily live nearby may still express their concerns over tree removals as their loss further contributes to the overall loss of vegetation and greening in the municipality and affects the fauna dependent on them for habitat etc. and shade.

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

    Anne Boyden commented

    In addition to previous points made I would also like to add that the proposed development will exceed the current height regulation. The flood mound will be at least 4 metres high with four storey buildings on top. This will create a huge edifice on Beach Street right at the entry to the town centre compromising the idea and look of Woolgoolga's village atmosphere.
    The traffic survey did not mention any movement of traffic from the RSL car park which enters and exits very close the the Beach/ Bultitude Street intersection and is very busy on the days when Bingo or exercise classes are held at the club.

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

    charlene commented

    I dont support this development, we must keep the cultural and historical heritage of Marrickville intact. As a local resident, I am appalled at what has been recently done to this house and the proposed development. Community values should prevail here and when the community says it values our architectural history and when developments do not take this into account then these developments must be stopped

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

    Marion Hunt commented

    I agree with Claire
    This area is shocking and a disaster

  30. In New Town TAS on “New Signage” at 170 - 174 New Town Road New Town Tas 7008:

    J Harrison commented

    They are big signs and bright red, but no worse than the ones at the Skin Cancer Clinic and Hotondo Homes. I think something in a colour more in keeping with the nature of the business and the building would look a lot nicer.

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