65 Castle Street, Eaglemont 3084 VIC

This proposal is excellent- the previous one for this site was a replica of the nightmare 35 Mount St overdevelopment, yet this formal proposal is very well done. Conserves a reasonable proportion of vegetation, does not over develop- and on the contrary we are actively considering purchasing one of these well planned homes ourselves.

We cannot believe that the Council will not approve this model development in this sensitive area, but as the council has let through the awful over development at 35 Mount st we realise that you might very well do so.

If you do let it though, or not approve this design as it it is, we fear a sale to a developer who will push what would probably be an intensively overdeveloped proposal like 35 mount st via VCAT. There are precedents nearby for this that we cannot ignore, and living directly opposite 65 we are deeply concerned that the council might not approve and thus precipitate the inevitable developer sale and massively over developed outcome as VCAt appears to (and has recently) readily approve them locally..

Please do anything in your power to stop any such outcome. We want this proposal to succeed-and possibly even buy one of these 4 homes ourselves.

We are extremely unhappy at the developments that you have let through in this close area, and therefore arer writing to express our very positive support for the proposal we have read carefully that you currently have before you.

Eaglemont is rapidly losing its unique character to make way for Mac mansions or townhouses. I once lived in this very house and I find demolishing it serves no purpose other than to bring in more rates and line the nests of greedy developers. Heidelberg was once a very early settled area of artists and artisans who appreciated its natural beauty. Parts of Eaglemont were designed and laid out by Walter Burley Griffin and a number of its streets were divided down the centre, providing much charm. Why wasn't there a Heritage overlay already in this area? I am appalled by the prospect of losing another piece of history of early 19th Century Melbourne.

I agree with you Laura Walsh. So unnecessary to demolish these older properties. These new town houses take the spirit and history out of Heidelberg and Eaglemont and ruin the area forever!

I agree with you Laura Walsh. So unnecessary to demolish these older properties. These new town houses take the spirit and history out of Heidelberg and Eaglemont and ruin the area forever!

I have great sympathy for Laura Walsh’s views and share most of them. My concerns are that the development pressures on Eaglemont are visibly rising due both the aging of residents leading to moves away and their greater sensitivity to the significant costs of maintaining these old buildings that tend to follow aging. The pressures for development are painfully obvious from 35 Mount St, and the current application for 65 Castle St is probably the only reasonably acceptable change of ownership-tempered by the massive interest by well funded developers on such sites, leading them to overdeveloped proposals and unmoderated pressures that they can fund for multiple VCAT applications and appeals.

So, do we say “dont allow any change”(remember we have no relevant overlays in place on this site-a major shortfall of the Council that has led to this situation) and have the inevitable developer purchases and sequence of predictable actions leading to a far worse outcome in all respects, or acting decisively to ensure that reasonably acceptable proposals are let through to avoid the far worse expected outcome of a failure to do so? You can see my decision above- but I am equally determined to get the neccessary overlays in place.

NB The lessons from the massive failures of 35 Mount St is that there are major problems in getting such overlays in place.

I have great sympathy for Laura Walsh’s views and share most of them. My concerns are that the development pressures on Eaglemont are visibly rising due both the aging of residents leading to moves away and their greater sensitivity to the significant costs of maintaining these old buildings that tend to follow aging. The pressures for development are painfully obvious from 35 Mount St, and the current application for 65 Castle St is probably the only reasonably acceptable change of ownership-tempered by the massive interest by well funded developers on such sites, leading them to overdeveloped proposals and unmoderated pressures that they can fund for multiple VCAT applications and appeals.

So, do we say “dont allow any change”(remember we have no relevant overlays in place on this site-a major shortfall of the Council that has led to this situation) and have the inevitable developer purchases and sequence of predictable actions leading to a far worse outcome in all respects, or acting decisively to ensure that reasonably acceptable proposals are let through to avoid the far worse expected outcome of a failure to do so? You can see my decision above- but I am equally determined to get the neccessary overlays in place.

NB The lessons from the massive failures of 35 Mount St is that there are major problems in getting such overlays in place.

I'm sorry, but I have to express how much I disagree with the removal of such a stunning gem of a home. They are not just memories for an ageing generation but are admired by tourists and residents from every demographic and age group, believe me. The demolition of such a charismatic and irreplaceable home is destruction, not progress or residential renewal, pointless destruction for the sake of greed and the degradation of what makes a suburb like Eaglemont so beautiful and desirable.

The preservation of heritage places and 'progress' toward higher density living are not mutually exclusive like many and Marcus seem to believe, there are numerous successful and great examples of preserving the facade of a residential heritage home and a developer building apartments out the back. For example 178 Union Road, Surrey Hills, 504 Glenferrie Road, Hawthorn & 496 Glenferrie Road, Hawthorn.

ALL PREVIOUSLY RESIDENTIAL HERITAGE HOMES, THOUGHTFULLY AND RESPECTIVELY DEVELOPED INTO APARTMENTS. WE DO NOT NEED TO FORGO OUR HISTORY AND CULTURE FOR THE SAKE OF RECKLESS POPULATION INCREASE!

I support the 65 Castle Street development. The proposal for 4 homes with much of the vegetation retained is a good outcome. The 35 Mount Street proposal was overbearing and grotesque. I personally organised 1,000 yellow pamphlets into residents letterboxes which resulted in more than 650 objections, a record for Banyule Council. I live close to the Castle Street development and am happy for us the share this wonderful suburb with 4 more families.

I support the 65 Castle Street development. The proposal for 4 homes with much of the vegetation retained is a good outcome. The 35 Mount Street proposal was overbearing and grotesque. I personally organised 1,000 yellow pamphlets into residents letterboxes which resulted in more than 650 objections, a record for Banyule Council. I live close to the Castle Street development and am happy for us the share this wonderful suburb with 4 more families.