Recent comments

  1. In Malvern East VIC on “Use and development of the...” at 781 - 805 Dandenong Road, Malvern East, VIC:

    Jarrod Fincher commented

    We have recently been informed that the proposed development at this site includes an application for a 20 storey residential building. This is totally unacceptable noting the proximity to low rise existing housing and certainly does not align with the Planning Scheme or indeed the proposed amendments to the scheme as outline in proposal C173.
    Residents have graciously accepted the insertion of towering 8 storey buildings in recent times, but this ever increasing height escalation and neighbourhood character degradation, is unacceptable.
    The expert advice and architectural descriptions are self-serving and lack any technical evidence. A bona fide impartial review must contain measurable quantum rather that high level anecdotal commentary. The application clearly relies on commentary over substance.
    For example overshadowing only considered specific times of day and clearly this is a high level and inadequate review for such an enormous development. All overshadowing must be noted including the absolute limits of overshadowing impact. This has not been done.
    This building proposes to access the carpark from Waverley Road when this very scenario was rejected for the application associated with the development at 877 Dandenong Road. In that instance access via St Johns Lane was upheld on the grounds of pedestrian safety. One wonders whether consistent application of opinion will be upheld or whether this will simply be another ill thought out approval by so called experts who do not live within the area or have their own investments at stake. Specifically if access via St Johns Lane
    The lack or reasonable provision of car parking is clearly going to spill into adjacent residential streets. It is unacceptable to offer such concession. We also note stealth tactics of using the ground level shopping as a way to justify parking concessions.
    We therefore ask the authority what limits for height restriction, if any, in fact exists with regards to development. The question it seems is not if the 20 storeys proposed is acceptable but rather is there any limit at all. Notwithstanding council’s proposed planning amendment C173 which clearly defines an acceptable limit, one would suggest that developers see no upper restriction and we would ask the relevant reviewing experts what this limit is. This will put a position to the current debate, which requires residents to argue why the enormous and ill thought out developments should be contained and checked in height and scale. Clearly there is a point at which the development becomes unfavourable but we note the specific absence of discussion, to this fundamental question within the documentation that supports this proposal. If the proposal has failed to consider the upper bound height constraint then one must conclude the proposal have not considered the factors which lead to the upper bound limit, and therefore the review is ill considered and flawed.
    The debate needs to define what the limit on scale is and we then need to undertake robust critique as to how this proposal falls within the upper bounds. At this stage the only documented upper bound is that in the C173 proposal and on that basis the development must be rejected. Until the develop and the supporting documentation provide and alternate view one must conclude they have failed to properly consider the issues which define acceptable development.

  2. In Malvern East VIC on “Use and development of the...” at 781 - 805 Dandenong Road, Malvern East, VIC:

    Jarrod Fincher commented

    We have recently been informed that the proposed devlopment at this site includes an application for a 20 storey residential building. This is totally unnaceptable noting the proximity to low rise existing housing and certainly does not align with the Planning Scheme or indeed the proposed amendments to the scheme as outline in proposal C173.
    Residents have gratiously accepted the insertion of towering 8 storey buildings in recent times, but this ever increasing height escalation and neighbourhood character degradation, is unnaceptable.
    The expert advice and architectural descriptions are self serving and lack any technical evidence. A bona fide impartial review must contain measurable quantum rather that high level anecdotal commentary. The application clearly relies on commentary over substance.
    For example overshadowing only considered specific times of day and clearly this is a high level and inadequate review for such an enourmous development. All overshadowing must be noted including the absolute limits of overshadowing impact. This has not been done.
    This building proposes to access the carpark from Waverley Road when this very scenario was rejected for the application associated with the devlopment at 877 Dandenong Road. In that instance access via St Johns Lane was upheld on the grounds of pedestrian safety. One wonders whether consistent application of opinion will be upheld or whether this will simply be another ill thought out approval by so called experts who do not live within the area or have their own investments at stake. Specifically if access via St Johns Lane
    The lack or reasonable provision of car parking is clearly going to spill into adjacent residential streets. It is unnacceptable to offer such concession. We also note stealth tactics of using the ground level shopping as a way to justify parking concenssions.
    We therefore ask the authority what limits for height restriction, if any, in fact exists with regards to development. The question it seems is not if the 20 stoereys proposed is acceptable but rather is their any limit at all. Notwithstanding councils proposed planning amendment C173 which clearly defines an acceptable limit, one would suggest that developers see no upper restriction and we would ask the relevant reviewing experts what this limit is. This will put a position to the current debate, which requires residents to argue why the enourmous and ill thought out developments should be contained and checked in height and scale. Clearly there is a point at which the development becomes unfavourable but we note the specific absence of discussion, to this fundamental question within the documentation that supports this proposal. If the proposal has failed to consider the upper bound height constraint then one must conclude the proposal have not considered the factors which lead to the upperbound limit, and therefore therefore the review is ill considered and flawed.
    The debate needs to define what the llimit on scale is and we then need to undertake robust critique as to how this proposal falls within the upper bounds. At this stage the only documented upper bound is that in the C173 proposal and on that basis the development must be rejected. Until the develop and the supporting documentation provide and alternate view one must conslude they have failed to properly consider the issues which define acceptable development.

  3. In Balmain NSW on “Alterations and additions...” at 3 Turner Street Balmain NSW 2041:

    Egle Garrick commented

    Concern with unauthorised fill laid by builder in the laneway to building site (off Cardwell Street, between North Streets and Truner Street). Laneway is a grassed drainage reserve and very susceptible to flooding. Builder has laid concrete fill along driving tracks to assist truck movement to remove soil. If fill is not removed, flooding will occur into North Street properties. Council had to remove unauthorised fill from a previous job at great expense to reslove flooding issue - laneway is grassed to allow natural drainage.

    Also concerend by the VERY large trucks which have been accessing the laneway to remove fill.

  4. In Marsden QLD on “Commercial - Multi Unit...” at 89-99 Demeio Road Marsden QLD 4132:

    There is already too much traffic on Bardon Road and this would be affected by development on Demio Road. commented

    Having lived on Bardon Road for the last 30 years, it is appalling how the volume of traffic has increased over the years due to more and more "development" in the area. Each new housing development, with most households owning at least 2 cars, means an astronomical build up of traffic on Bardon Road. Already at certain periods during the day, it is impossible to even cross the road in order to walk the dogs, but now it is getting impossible to access our driveway with our caravan whenever we have been away, due to the sheer volume of traffic and so many aggressive, impatient drivers.

    No more developments should be passed by council until such time as there is a road through from Third Avenue to Wembley Road, taking the pressure off Bardon Road, which is, after all, a residential area.

    My wife and I strongly object to this proposed development.

  5. In Chatswood NSW on “Demolition of existing...” at 18 Freeman Road, Chatswood NSW 2067.:

    Alexandra Allende commented

    The application should not be approved. Reasons are many and include
    1. The area has a peaceful character and is safe, with a family friendly environment. Having a transient population changes the dynamic of the place.
    2. A boarding house is already being built in Albert street by the railway station, which although not desirable is still more in tune with the surrounding area. One of the attractive qualities of living in Chatswood West is that it is removed from the super high density of the commercial hub near the station, and this should be preserved. It maintains a residential tone to a suburb which would otherwise be just high density and highly commercial.
    3. I have lived in this street for 7 years and was born in the area (in Artarmon) more than 30 years ago so I am very familiar with the locality and I agree that families value peace at night so they can sleep undisturbed. Noise pollution would be unavoidable with that many students in the area.
    4. There is an extreme shortage of parking in the area. In the block of apartments where I live visitors parking is limited and often used inappropriately, having 12 allocated parking spots for that many boarders is crazy.
    5. The park right next to the apartment block on Freeman Road has been used on occasions by school students to smoke and drink alcohol, or truancy which gives a bad example to kids crossing this area and the development of student accommodation in the street will only negatively impact the numbers of unsavoury characters and affect impressionable children. Again this brings down the standard of the area.
    In conclusion I strongly object to the development of student accommodation in this street as it will be detrimental to property and rental values and cause noise and traffic pollution and encourage unsavoury behaviour in the area,

  6. In Portarlington VIC on “Packaged Liquor Licence” at 6-8 Brown Street, Portarlington 3223, VIC:

    Ian Whitehead commented

    As I am aware, the Portarlington Business Development Association is behind the push for the Liquor outlet. Perhaps the Association could be renamed "The Portarlington Booze Encouragement Association". The number of alcohol outlets will soon outnumber the number of real estate agents operating in town. What a strange set of priorities we have.

    This application should not be approved because of the problems it will cause. There are already too many alcohol outlets for a town of just over three thousand people. The streets are littered with empty bottles flung from cars. There has been an obvious increase in traffic-related issues to do with alcohol. There is no effective policing.

    Apart from the list of liquor outlets mentioned in the previous comment, there is the bowling club and the football club where alcohol is consumed. We should stop this application now.

    I have not, and would never donate to a Councillor or Council employee. Heaven forbid.

  7. In Wolli Creek NSW on “Conversion of approved...” at 23 Gertrude Street, Wolli Creek NSW 2205:

    Robert McDonald commented

    Hello Rockdale City Council.
    While I have no objection to the proposal to remove the commercial units from 23 Gertrude, I do have some concerns over the provided documentation.
    The document "Statement of Environmental Effects - 23 Gertrude Street & 20-26 Innesdale Road Wolli Creek - Opra Architects". States that building "A" will have 42 x 2 bedroom apartments and building B will have 33 x 2 bedroom apartments for an incorrect total of 74 x 2 bedroom apartments rather than 75 (the actual total of the two buildings).
    The document also refers to drawing A03- Revision R which is not attached with the application.
    Also the attached drawing "Site Plan - 23 Gertrude Street and 20-26 Innesdale Road Wolli Creek - Opra Architects" contains a commercial unit in Building A which according to the proposal would not exist. Is it possible for the updated Site Plan to be made available?

    I feel that as an off the plan purchaser of this property that the developer should perhaps provide the correct documentation if they wish to change their approval.
    It would have also have been nice of them to inform those who have already purchased units in this development of this proposal, rather than having to find it out by searching through the Rockdale Council website.

  8. In Portarlington VIC on “Packaged Liquor Licence” at 6-8 Brown Street, Portarlington 3223, VIC:

    Katarina Mrhar commented

    I emphatically think that this application SHOULD NOT be approved. Portarlington is already saturated with outlets that can provide alcohol to the public. The township already has a packaged liquor outlet in Newcombe Street less than 50 metres away. Additionally the local IGA also in Newcombe Street provides ample opportunity for people to purchase packaged liquor. There is also another IGA on the corner of Fenwick Street and the Geelong-Portarlington Road that distributes pre-packaged liquor to the public. Most cafes and restaurants in the immediate area have a liquor licence. The Portarlington Golf Course is another major outlet where alcohol is available. Portarlington is also surrounded by an economically viable wine industry that does not need further economic pressure from a cut-price discounter such as Woolworths that sells wine, beer and other alcoholic beverages produced outside the Bellarine geographical area at prices against which local boutique producers cannot compete.

    Portarlington does not have a permanent police presence; there is no police station; the closest one being at Drysdale 10 km away. During the holiday periods between December and Easter residents often must tolerate the drunken and disorderly behavior of inebriated people as they walk the "gauntlet" of drunks along Newcombe Street while going about their daily business. Introducing another liquor outlet less than 50 metres away that is known to provide discount prices will encourage even further consumption of alcohol and accompanying bullying, violent and aggressive behavior.
    Unless the police presence is increased during these holiday periods and a crack down on aggressive drunken behavior no further liquor licences in Portarlington of any sort should be issued.

  9. In Newnham TAS on “Install a 25m high monopole...” at 178 George Town Road Newnham TAS 7248:

    Tony Thai commented

    Objection,
    This Telstra antenna pole can not locate in the residential area.
    This device is too high and affect to surrounding area.
    Adverse to neighbourhood amenities
    Should not be approved.
    Tony Thai
    0433194143
    2 WATERFORD AVENUE
    MARIBYRNONG
    VIC 3032

  10. In Ashburton VIC on “Construction of 22...” at 322 High Street Ashburton VIC 3147:

    Rod Harrop commented

    The construction of 22 dwellings, aside from any other neighbourly concerns, poses an unacceptable risk to public safety. Exiting driveway at this location is absolutely treacherous, as there is insufficient safe distance from the blind kink westward of Warrigal Rd. The greatly increased in/out traffic associated with such a development will exacerbate this danger significantly. Traffic along High St. is often heavy, and opportunity to exit "safely" is very limited as it is now. Exiting driveway is never truly safe anyhow, cars positively fly around this bend. Councillors are welcome to come and see for themselves. Simply too close to BLIND corner to be contemplating development of this scale. Please build this one elsewhere and avert potential deaths/injuries. Modifying road access cannot possibly reduce risk sufficiently for this development to be appropriate.

  11. In Eltham VIC on “Buildings and works to...” at 12 Henry Street, Eltham VIC 3095:

    Mrs Brenda Worrall commented

    Having seen the plans of the potential construction of three dwellings at 12 Henry street Eltham I wish to voice my objection to the two proposed driveways which would exit into Taylor street .
    From the bottom of Taylor street to the proposed driveways there are already 7 driveways and two garages exiting onto that street already;of these driveways some are used by more than one car and dwelling.
    Taylor street is very narrow and is already very busy with school buses and drop offs and returns by cars entering Taylor street and exiting by Henry street this means it is already difficult to reverse out of the driveways onto Taylor without adding more driveways.
    These driveways need to be redesigned so that cars exit and enter through Henry street.
    My main objection is that my driveway would be almost directly oposite one of those proposed for 12 Henry street.

  12. In Richmond VIC on “Use and development of the...” at 172 Lennox St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Eva Mills commented

    Any major change to building height on this site will be detrimental to the current low-rise character of Lennox Street. Overlooking and shadowing a significant concern. This many apartments will also put even more stress on parking in the area.

  13. In Sunshine VIC on “Variation of Licence” at Tenancy S1 Sunshine Market Place, Shopping Centre, Sunshine 3020, VIC:

    Odette Budge commented

    I am quite surprised and alarmed about this new planning application. Sunshine shopping centre has an abundance of liquor shops including near the bus/ train station.

    We live within a 50m radius there is already at least 5 outlets that open in similar hours- Derrimut hotel, Foodworks, Cellarbrations, Sunshine Cellars and Cheers etc. This doesn't include the main shopping centre within walking distance from the train/ bus station where there is Safeway which sells liquor etc...

    Our family lives in this zone and is already impacted upon by; the regular drinkers who wait for the stores to open and drink outside on the bus stops/ train station and local park using paperbags and shopping bags to disguise their casks, open bottles etc; The younger out of work people with nothing to do, new migrants who are learning to use alcohol at the back of the train station. The combination of no work, little opportunity or hope and alcohol is fueling the aggressive pattern on our streets, particularly around the station.The later hours it seems the outlets sell alcohol, the greater the fights, litter and ugly human behaviour such as defecating and urinating in laneways/ parks etc.

    We have called police at times when it's becoming dangerous and Brimbank council about this. There is so much the police already have to deal with it is low on their priorities in the main. The bylaws officers and at times the police appear often too scared/ too busy to approach them... I think as a community that is increasing in size and increasing in unemployment, alcohol related illnesses, adding another liquor shop is not going to help our community. As a regulator you may not see the impact of longer hours of selling cheap alcohol and more outlets has on us.

    I implore you to not just think about the on paper planning request but the low SES, high youth unemployment and high newly arrived community who already has enough liquor shops. I do not work for any council, do not have any influence with the liquor or planning department at Brimbank council but only a ratepayer who is speaking out for people who don't know how to in my community. We live with the poor choices of the past in liquor licensing and gaming has had on Sunshine and hope for a sober judgement on this additional planning permit.

    I am happy to write a more coherent, logical objection if I am needed to write to specific planning law or points. Please let me know if there is something I can refer to, it is the first objection to a liquor license I have written so am unsure of how to approach it.

    Kind regards,
    Odette Budge
    ombudge@gmail.com

  14. In St Leonards VIC on “2 Lot Subdivision and...” at 172 Manifold Road, St Leonards:

    Geoff Cook commented

    The size of the land is insufficient to allow such a subdivision and should be rejected. As we are going through the same subdivision process we were told that nothing less than 150 acres can be approved for subdivision into minimum lots of 75 acres. It does not meet council guidelines. You also need to check that the new "cross over" has been registered.
    Geoff Cook 130 Manifold Rd, St Leonards.

  15. In Mount Victoria NSW on “A split level dwelling” at 12-14 Milson Street, Mount Victoria, NSW:

    Peter Morgan commented

    The reason we recently purchased our property at no7 Mt Piddington Road was the terrific bush views.

    Every effort should be made to preserve established trees on the site and I will rely on the council to ensure that happens

  16. In Wentworthville NSW on “Construction of a two...” at 13 Warra Street Wentworthville NSW 2145:

    Norman & Inez Mitchell commented

    We wish to make a Submission on the above development application.
    Our concern is based on PUBLIC INTEREST (Streetscape & Environment)

    Our concern is the proposal to remove two street trees immediatly infront of #13 Warra St.
    These two trees are both well established Jacaranda mimosaefolia. We estimate the trees to be at least 40 years old and are both in perfect health.
    These trees are two of a number of such trees in our street and infact, are quite a feature of the streetscape and are simply stunning when in flower in November each year. In addition to these well established trees, some residents have planted additional Jacarandas to further enhance our street into the future. Visitors and newcomers to our street always comment on the beauty of the trees, whether in flower or not.

    We believe that with some small changes to the placement of the over footpath crossings the trees need not be removed and would infact, enhance the appearence of the proposed development. This could be achieved by moving the proposed crossings slightly to the right (south) of each tree. There is ample space to do this without impacting on the vehicular access to the proposed garages.

  17. In Mt Nathan QLD on “Description: Class: IMPACT...” at 137 Nathan Valley Road Mount Nathan 4211:

    Isabel Gall commented

    Re Development Proposed at 137 Nathan Valley Road, Mount Nathan. It has come to our attention that The Oval Drive & Trentbridge Crt will be used to access this particular site. This is a no through Rd estate, with narrow access roads that do not lend themselves to through traffic and this proposed development will see a lot of traffic that is not local traffic. Also I believe it is a Conservation Area & this increased traffic will impact on the native fauna in particular koalas.
    Reference :MCU201200440 Isabel Gall

  18. In Surry Hills NSW on “403 Crown St Pty Ltd -...” at 403 Crown Street, Surry Hills 2010:

    Thomas Smith commented

    "Alcohol fueled violence is OUT OF CONTROL in Surry Hills"

    Citation please. The literature I have read suggests this is not the case.

  19. In Surry Hills NSW on “403 Crown St Pty Ltd -...” at 403 Crown Street, Surry Hills 2010:

    A Byrnes commented

    Surry Hills is SATURATED with pubs and licensed venues. Another pub is not needed or welcome.

    Clover Moore claims she doesn't take money from the AHA but at the same time she NEVER OPPOSES the constant stream of new liquor licenses, extended hours applications and extended capacity applications.

    Alcohol fueled violence is OUT OF CONTROL in Surry Hills and MUST BE STOPPED - this starts with a ban on all new licenses in the already-saturated area.

  20. In Richmond VIC on “Use and development of the...” at 172 Lennox St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Christine Hammett commented

    This is an over development of this site - 59 apartments. Developer greed yet again and creating tomorow's slum. What about the car parking?

  21. In Avalon NSW on “A new single dwelling and...” at 69 Riverview Road Avalon:

    Nicholas Ridgwell commented

    We are residents and owners of 64 Riverview Road, Avalon, which is directly opposite the subject property, 69 Riverview Road.

    We were notified of the application by Council and in response to our questions, relating primarily to parking arrangements, we were contacted by a Council Officer who advised that approval would be granted subject to conditions.

    In discussion with the Officer I pointed out that many properties in the area adopt brown walls and green roofs in order to minimise their visual impact. I advised that our property is subject to a covenant which requires these colours. The Council Officer agreed that a condition to reflect this was warranted.

    We note that condition11 of the approval requires low reflectivity materials to minimise glare.

    As the building works are advancing we are concerned that the roof cladding appears to be a silver colour which is not in accordance with the approval and will cause discomfort to us as we are elevated relative to their property and face due west.

    Please confirm the applicant will be required to apply a dark non reflective finish to the roof BEFORE a Certificate of Occupancy is granted.

  22. In Richmond VIC on “Use and development of the...” at 172 Lennox St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Hamish Robinson commented

    An excessively large number of dwellings for the size of the site which will further exacerbate parking issues in Lennox street. I assume given the number of dwellings this will likely cause significant overlooking down Lennox street and Rowena Parade.

  23. In Glenroy VIC on “Construction of four...” at 20 Kennedy Street, Glenroy VIC 3046:

    Yvonne Dickenson commented

    Test to see where this goes

  24. In Neutral Bay NSW on “Modification of Consent...” at 145 Wycombe Rd Neutral Bay, NSW:

    Jeanette Coulson commented

    In reference to the letter written 21 February 2013 received this week.

    I will be happy to see the gum tree at the back of 145 Wycombe Road Neutral Bay removed.

    My husband and I walk up the Rangers Lane to the shops and feel very threatened by this tree as it has large branches which are dead hanging over the lane. When the winds are blowing we walk up Wycombe Road. as sticks and twigs drop from a great height.

    We think this application should be approved

    Jeanette Coulson
    unit 8 103/107 Wycombe Road Neutral Bay nsw 2089

  25. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Construction of a three...” at 262 Sussex Street, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    Dina Ding commented

    if community values, residents concern and rights do matter to council, this plan wouldn't get approved. if council is only interested in money, then it will get a way. Alcohol saturation, with associated violence and crime in our 24/7society is already a serious and growing problem. I hope councillor could check the map or have a look around here, more than FIVE bottle shops within TWO kilometres radiue. Do you call these undersupply or oversupply??? The last thing we need here is more cheap booze.

  26. In Blaxlands Ridge NSW on “Cemetry” at 288 Packer Road Blaxlands Ridge:

    Harold Moellmer commented

    As a hawkesbury resident and rate payer for the past 27 years I am mortified that someone would even suggest putting a cemetery in such a pristine area.To me the issue is not about religion but more to do with the rear of 288 Packer Rd being less than 200 m from Roberts creek .900m downstream it flows into a swampy wetland area ,home to many types of birds and wildlife. 700m further it flows under West portland Rd and into our great Hawkesbury River.Three klm down stream there is quiet little hamlet called Cumberland reach,where I moved with my family 14 years ago because of our love for the River and the pristine environment.If there is even a remote chance that some sort of pathogen could end up in our great Hawkesbury where my children swim I urge the council to put a stop to this lunacy.

  27. In Richmond VIC on “Commercial - 2 New...” at 54 Hunter St Richmond VIC 3121:

    Julian Lenehan commented

    This application should be declined on the reduction of parking Firstly as residents cannot park now after 7pm as all parks are taken
    Secondly building a 3 storey building in that block lord / hunter street will be out of scale with existing buildings

  28. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Construction of a three...” at 262 Sussex Street, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    Kirsti Clark commented

    Let's face it - Moreland Council will give a building permit to anyone who asks-as long as it means they will get more money from rates. You only have to look at how they approve endless developments in this suburb. Single houses are numbered. It is the same for shops-if they are not two or three storeys high with room for multiple apartments-then their days are numbered.

  29. In Wahroonga NSW on “A 4&6 storey building-130...” at 185 Fox Valley Road, Wahroonga:

    Claire Williams commented

    This is too large a building on top of the school the SDA church is already placing on Fox Valley - Road - the traffic cannot cope and due to hospital parking Fox Valley Road is a single laned Road - there are now too many buildings holding too many people on Fox Valley road which is a residential road, apart from the hospital. Already it takes 20mins in the morning to go down the road towards the Comenarra.
    There is a reserve with endangered plants and Coups creek next to this development - the Pacific highway corridor is the place for this building - not Fox Valley Road.
    This development will create chaos - there is not the roads, public transport and infrastructure to support it.

  30. In Pascoe Vale VIC on “Construction of a three...” at 262 Sussex Street, Pascoe Vale VIC 3044:

    Peter Fuggle commented

    Development of this tired shopping strip is long over due and I support this application. I would like to have a bottle shop within closer walking distance of my home than Merlynston. Yes, there are significant social problems resulting from alcohol abuse in particular under age and binge drinking. But these problems will not be solved or even marginally impacted by restricting the availability of packaged alcohol. Frankly I am sick of having my rights and legal behaviour impinged upon due to restrictions aimed at the lowest common denominator. We need to bring vibrant businesses into this area, not drive them away.

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