Please stick to council's car parking guidelines, they have been developed for a reason!
Please respect the car park requirements, developed for a reason, and help ensure practicality of the development long after the developer has sold them all off.
This application is NOT for 71 Beaconsfield -Emerald Rd Beaconsfield Upper 3808.
It is for 71 Beaconsfield -Emerald Rd Emerald 3782.
This matters!
If this is a family day care, no objection.
If this is a THIRD day care centre in Bunyip - I object to that being built.
We have a town of 4,000 people. We do not need a third day care center.
The traffic along this road during school pick up and drop off with the school, a day care and being the primary exit and entrance into bunyip is chaos.
We totally agree on giving permission to subdivision / build 2 houses in this large lot. I found few reasons for agree that:
1. The Barrington street property have huge land areas for a single house. Because of that there are a lot of spaces without using in efficient manner. It is a huge waste. I believe, around the town area, we should use maximum land consumption. This will allow increase the efficiency.
2. The area looks like haunting with old houses with large lot. This is not providing beauty to the Pakenham. Therefore, we happy to see new houses surrounding.
3. Pakenham is a major city center. So been crowded is giving immense opportunity to create new businesses and increase income.
4. The area is continuously creating new job opportunities and the workers need more places to stay.
Therefore, I do believe, we should give our permission for this request.
Thank you.
Previous owners of this property and were knocked back for subdivision multiple times by Melbourne Water due to the flooding levy.
The approval of this subdivision within 2 years of selling whe there is a 100 year flood levy that we were informed made us ineligible to subdivide seems unfair. I have evidence of these conversations with Melbourne Water.
Thank you,
Emma.
We are concerned about the storm water run off from 7 new properties, as the water run off from Russell road is already not sufficient enough. So by adding extra properties it will only make it even more insufficient to the drains that are in place and they overflow constantly. Is anything going to be put into place for the drainage for these properties? Soak well pits will not be adequate enough as has been proven by the houses that have been built along gembrook-launching place road opposite Russell road. Thank you. Karen geoffrey.
This resident has been grading his block without a permit incessantly, particularly in the summer months for around 8 years. It has been brought to the attention of councillors and Council multiple times and yet Council have done nothing to control it, or the damage he has done right up to the fenceline of the wetlands. In 2014 we were told he had 4 years to complete his works but this was never controlled by Council in any way.
Why is Council now even considering allowing him to continue the noise and destruction? He has a history of ignoring all laws and directions.
The permit application is laughable with drawings that are far from professional.
They ask for a 7 x 8 metre pond when the drawings show an 8 x 9 metre pond as if specifics and engineering don't matter.
I urge Council to refuse this application and to ensure that rehabilitation of the land surrounding the wetlands is undertaken.
This permit if granted will allow diverting water from flowing to the Melbourne Water protected area. Surely this is not permitted
This person has made an eye-sore of the area and most likely is only needing the pond due to water around his property from doing so much illegal earthworks. He needs to be given clear guidelines, supervision and a timeline for any further work before he makes a complete mess of it all!
We oppose this application to encourage the preservation of the aesthetics of the area. We are in a greenwedge zone not commercial and would prefer to not visibly see large signage down our main road.
Halford st has a very dangerous corner onto Emerald Beaconsfield road. The previous tenant of the shop stopped the council from blocking off the entry into Halford St that was earmarked to be done. Halford St doesn’t need anymore traffic on it, Its a dirt road as well.
We moved to Upper Beaconsfield many years ago to get AWAY from this type of development and the urban sprawl. What makes Upper Beaconsfield so unique is the integration of semi rural housing set amongst the stunning bushland setting. It means we share this stunning location, with the incredible and abundant local wildlife. This type of housing is suited to Berwick and Beaconsfield, etc and NOT Upper Beaconsfield. This type of development will only encourage further similar inappropriate development.
Upper Beaconsfield is a unique and stunning suburb, where this type of development is NOT APPROPRIATE and as a result l strongly object.
Regards Fred
The application for 3 dwellings across the stated land size is not acceptable. Residents of Beaconsfield Upper choose to live here because of lifestyle, not to be attempting to navigate traffic, or be subjected to increased noise in the area.
As a resident of Halford St, the increase to traffic with a revamped business has resulted in traffic down Halford St and parking. With the fire station navigating Halford St as a thoroughfare, surely an increase to residential traffic and households not in the best interests in community safety and responsiveness. As a community we should be limiting small land parcels to preserve the nature of Beaconsfield Upper.
Hi, I agree with all of the above. It is not appropriate for Upper Beaconsfield and particularly dangerous for this street and the intersection of McBride and Beaconsfield/Emerald Rds. This would set a dreadful precedence for our village which once started would be a disaster for all who appreciate the quiet lifestyle. Please do not approve this application.
The application for 3 dwellings across the stated land size is not acceptable. Residents of Beaconsfield Upper choose to live here because of lifestyle, not to be attempting to navigate traffic, or be subjected to increased noise in the area.
As a resident of Halford St, the increase to traffic with a revamped business has resulted in traffic down Halford St and parking. With the fire station navigating Halford St as a thoroughfare, surely an increase to residential traffic and households not in the best interests in community safety and responsiveness. As a community we should be limiting small land parcels to preserve the nature of Beaconsfield Upper.
As a residence of Halford St this type of high density living does not fit in with the values and existing property sizes in the area.
The road is already over used and only room for one way traffic.
I strongly object this development.
Thanks Jaison, can’t get it on line so I will follow up with a visit to the Shire office. Do you have the details anyway to share?
DONNA, good comment; PARKING they will park on the nature strip just like they do all around Pakenham, including Henry Street around the bend close to the Bowling Club that has many parking spaces even when the Bowls Club is in full swing.
All the information is there for you to see
Very small block for what is mentioned here. How many stories is “multi storey”?
12 residential units? Parking has to be underground for this to have any substance. Like to see the detailed application.
All this on 787 sqm block. This is very poor planning in this area and a compromise to the life style.
Where the hell are they going to park. As usual no thought put into this.
What about the quality of life for the poor buggars that live in the units beside this.
Kevin B
Halford Road should not have the congestion this sort of proposed development will inevitably bring about. I have not met one resident who would support it. This will change the nature of the Upper Beac environment. There will be no end to the upset this will cause if it is allowed to proceed. This is an affront to democratic representation of the local community
As a resident of Upper Beaconsfield for over 27 years, I am opposed to this development. High density housing is not in keeping with the area and will detract from the amenity of the township. I am concerned this development could open the door to further high density housing which will irrevocably change Upper Beaconsfield and destroy the reasons we all choose to live here.
Please do not allow this development to go ahead.
We are moving to upper beac for the country life and don’t feel Townhouses developments belong in Upper beac. There are plenty of blocks available in Berwick or Clyde for these type of developments. It will really detract away from the beautiful community and I’m sure it will de value properties in close proximity.
Please re consider this proposal as I doubt anyone in the community is for this development.