28 Beaconsfield-Emerald Road, Beaconsfield Upper, VIC

Subdivision of the land into three (3) lots and removal of vegetation

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website 2 months ago. The date it was received by them was not recorded.

(Source: Cardinia Shire Council, reference T210780)

62 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Magda commented

    There are no units or townhouses in BU. Halford st is a hard and dangerous rd to enter. There would be no way to have large construction down the st as it’s the only exit. With the restaurant parking and and local traffic entry. This would be a real mess.

    It would be a real shame if this is allowed as it will open up to more small developments. Most blocks are half acre to acreage.

  2. Johanna commented

    I’m very surprised there would be even a consideration of small blocks for units in Beaconsfield Upper. We are a country town with hectares and acres. Not an urban town.

    Please consider the implications of this is approved. I object to this application as a resident of Halford St. It is not the right area for town houses. I was under the impression the land in this area had to be half an acre as part of the residential land agreement for Beaconsfield Upper.

  3. Maree commented

    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.

  4. BJ commented

    As a resident of Halford Street I strongly object to the application to create small blocks in Halford Street.
    We have recently been impacted by the opening of the restaurant on the corner of Halford Street and Beaconsfield Emerald Road. There is not enough car parks and the patron park down Halford Street quite often on our frontage. This causes additional traffic and noise to our quiet street. If Units are built on this land, it will force these cars to park even further down Halford Street. Maybe a car park would be a far better use of the land.
    Being small allotments I imagine that two storying dwellings would be a consideration for this land. This would allow the occupants a view into our back yard. We purchased our property in Beaconsfield Upper to avoid just this! We may as well be back in Berwick on a small block with neighbours on top of us.
    We did not more to Beaconsfield Upper to live next door to units or town houses. We believe the minimum land size should be maintained and object in the strongest terms to this planned development.

  5. Leigh Taylor commented

    I am astounded that you would even consider subdividing this block!

    Obviously the owner of this land has not lived on this land for a long time, if ever. The changes to the traffic conditions in Halford street over the last few years has had a negative impact on the current residents of Halford Street. The recent changes to the establishment on the corner of the road have encourages their patrons to park in Halford street, many of which park on the curb of this land. If is is subdivided these cars will be pushed further down Halford Street, which will bring more traffic, noise and at times drunken behaviour to what was once a quiet street.
    Units or town houses will look totally out of place and have the potential to devalue the rest of the street. More traffic in the street will cause what is already a nightmare of an intersection to be even worse.
    We live in Upper Beac because it is a rural town, where we are surrounded by large properties where we do not live on top of each other. If we want unit or town houses, can I suggest you go down the hill to Berwick where these smaller dwellings belong!

  6. G Bailey commented

    This degree of subdivision does not fit at all with the locale. It is more akin to development of inner suburbs such as South Melbourne and Bayside. As it is, traffic and parking for the new restaurant makes the access to Halford St at times trecherous with the small thorough fare. It is a confusing intersection at the best of times. The road is not sealed and full of pot holes - additional traffic will worsen this. Further, the gravel access from Halford St to the Community Centre is inappropriately being used as a thoroughfare; this adds to the current vehicular pressure on the street.

  7. Olga Connolly commented

    As a new resident of Upper Beaconsfield, I strongly object to this proposed subdivision. We moved here because we wanted to get away from the close quarters of urban subdivision. This is a rural town wherein lies its charm. We have livestock and horses are being ridden in the streets. Introducing higher density living, will make equestrian pursuits unsafe - which would make a huge impact to the current residents and the feel of the place. Please don't allow this to happen.

  8. Karen C commented

    I think this subdivision is not in keeping with the feel of and inline with type of existing dwellings in the township of upper Beaconsfield. Most of the residents moved here to avoid the higher density dwellings of suburbs down the hill and as such will take away from the feel of the area.
    This also has traffic implications in the area. Upper Beaconsfield has become a major cut through from the pakenham area to Wellington road and the intersections of Salisbury/ Beaconsfield emerald road and halford street/ service road/ Beaconsfield emerald road are becoming increasingly dangerous during these busy periods and and additional traffic along this road would have implications on traffic.
    In addition many local children ride/ walk to school and use this halford street/Beaconsfield emerald road as a crossing putting additional risk on our children.
    I ask council to consider the subdivision into 2 lots and instead a 1000m2 would be much more appropriate to the area.

  9. Debbie Winder commented

    As the first residents of Halford Street-over 37 years ago, we have seen our street(still unmade and potholed) once used only by residents become a busy & very used thoroughfare. The intersection onto Emerald Road has never changed. It is dangerous & although a no left turn sign has been in place for a few years now we still have trouble with drivers paying no attention to it.
    Since the new venue has opened at the end of the street it has caused alot more traffic and cars park where the subdivision is proposed. Once in place having no other possibility of a close park it will force patrons to park further down our street.
    I strongly oppose the subdivision.

  10. Col winder commented

    Been in this road for close to 40years and concur with everyones comments there is no room for anything else the restraunt,community nursery firebrigade RSL, .mens shed thats not inc22x4goals vluding residences just too congested for a poorly planned road that has always been a problem with the no left turn that everybody laughs at while executing an illegal turn and levelling road rage abuse at the drivers who are legal. Dont make things worse.

  11. Melinda Conn commented

    As a long term resident of upper Beaconsfield I would like to strongly appose the proposed subdivision of 28 Beaconsfield Emerald Rd Upper Beaconsfield. This proposal is not in keeping with the rural feel of upper Beaconsfield. This would set a dangerous precedent, allowing smaller sub divisions and more high density dwellings in the future . When I think back a few years to where the golf club up here had their application to sub divide 5 x 7acre blocks rejected, it would be totally hypocritical to support this type of development.

  12. Troy Danns commented

    As a resident of Upper Beac. and living one street away from the proposed development i object.

    I bought here 14 yrs ago, the location, wide open spaces and country feel whilst being in close driving distance to Beaconsfield was perfect.

    Upper Beac. Is a leafy green, wildlife rich small town, as yet and hopefully never, unaffected by the dense, shoe box developer land grab and pocket lining cash grab.

    Upper Beac. Is a quite sleepy hollow, we don't need or want subdivision. Upper Beac. Dosn't need or want more traffic, more parking congestion... whats next bitumen each and every single road to suit subdivision??

    No to subdivision.

  13. Leroy commented

    Please don’t do this! We moved from Berwick to Upper Beaconsfield for this very reason! The quiet court we lived in for 15 years turned into a Carpark for multiple townhouses and units!! If this gets through more will follow!! Big blocks, with beautiful big trees and privacy is Upper Beac’s biggest charm don’t destroy it!!

  14. Toby Godbehere commented

    As a residence of Halford St this type of high density living definitely 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 can’t even believe something like this would be considered..

  15. Belinda commented

    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.

  16. Adam commented

    As a resident of upper Beaconsfield since the late 80s I strongly oppose this development.
    It goes against everything this town stands for.
    It is concerning that this type of development has been actually considered.

    Hopefully common sense prevails this time.

  17. E M commented

    No developments please. Not in line with the area or the wildlife or the already busy intersection.

  18. Krissy commented

    This type of development definitely does not fit in with the beautiful area that is Upper Beaconsfield. There is no need for this type of dwelling here. We moved from Berwick to UB 7 years ago to escape this type of suburban living and enjoy the wide open spaces and trees. I strongly oppose to this development going ahead!

  19. Adam commented

    Upper Beaconsfields charm comes from its environment and wildlife rich feel. A subdividing allowing a new standard of block size to be set might open the opportunity to ruin the neighbourhoods feel. As a former resident of old Berwick, the over population and parking of vehicles on streets is a disaster. Town planning parking requirements may be considered but they are far from effective with cars over flowing from their driveways, parking on the streets and hindering neighbours. Couple this with an already busy entrance to the street, this is not an ideal situation.
    No to smaller subdivisions and especially on blocks of this size.

  20. Alla Keogh commented

    This type of development is inappropriate for the area. People choose to live here for its country feel and space. Building units makes it just another suburb. We have already lost so much with roads being paved, this is just another step to Upper Beaconsfield turning into suburbia. It is not what residents want!

  21. Jordan Leskie commented

    There is no room for this development! The restaurant parking already takes up an incredible amount of halford street, any additional construction or housing to add to parking would be crazy! The town houses/units do not match with the upper beaconsfield vibe, and seems like a silly crash grab when realistically this land should be developed to manage the overflow of traffic now from the restaurant, not add to already poorly maintained road! The road is in terrible condition and should be maintained better if this sort of development is even to be considered!

  22. Jennifer Coates commented

    I strongly oppose this development.
    This application is big on rhetoric but appalling on detail and exhibiting absolutely no knowledge of the area, the road, the nearby intersection and most importantly the community.
    e.g page 10 of the report by Universal Planning states "An assessment of the proposal reveals that it meets these policy objectives for the following reasons;  As required by Clause 16.01-1S, the supply has contributed to an increase in the supply of housing in an existing urban area close to services and retail and employment centres (noting the ease of location to Box Hill Central and Doncaster Westfields)." This is beyond laughable.
    The main road has been marked on the map as Gembrook Road.
    On Page 11 it states that Upper Beaconsfield is within the "Metropolitan Melbourne growth area". Really?
    In regards to Standard C6 (page 12) it states "The proposed lot sizes is not at odds with the existing subdivision character/pattern/rhythm." I think the 2,000+ residents would disagree! Or is the planner still talking about Box Hill?
    Page 16: "The proposed lot will be connected to the electricity grid, telecommunication network (including NBN) and gas supply." Gas supply people! Upper Beaconsfield is getting gas, but only to these two blocks.
    The report also states that the business that fronts Beaconsfield-Emerald Rd and is part of this subdivision is a "dwelling". For at least 60 years it has been a business.
    The report states that to accommodate the BAL rating and the need for a firefighting water tank the building envelope will go right to the edges of the block boundaries. Please show where this is the norm in Upper Beaconsfield?
    These matters (and there are many other instances within the report) are raised to point out that this is an extremely poorly considered subdivision with an equally appalling supporting report that thumbs its nose at, and exhibits no knowledge of the near neighbours much less the wider community.

  23. Deborah commented

    I strongly disagree with this subdivision. I am not a resident of Halford street however I am within the direct vicinity with similar sized blocks in my street. I would not like this to become a standard whatsoever in Beaconsfield Upper, it isn’t the reason we moved up here and was the exact reason we moved out of Old Berwick.
    The traffic and parking conditions in this little precinct is already extremely conjested at times and often dandergous.

  24. Marie commented

    Subdivisions lie outside the general order of the local community. Upper Beaconsfield is not a place for subdivisions for townhouses etc. There is a very real, authentic nature in Upper Beac and the introduction of these types of properties will impede on that.
    I also agree that the particular location for the subdivision is already crowded and that it would not make sense to add to this. It is a dirt road. Not a particularly suitable place for subdivision.

  25. Dean Leskie commented

    As someone who frequents the street regularly to visit family, I struggle to understand how this land could be intended for subdivision when the current establishment needs additional parking already. The restaurant already generates too many cars that overflow unsafely onto Halford street. This additional traffic - that was clearly not intended for that poorly maintained road - impacts the safety of the intersection, I have watched too many pedestrian and vehicles be seconds away from catastrophe, with an illegal turn.

    When you partner this additional safety precaution and the poor condition of the pothole filled road this application should be rejected straight away. The land should be used as a parking strategy for the establishment that is causing this additional traffic. Tradies and ladies never caused these issues.

    Additionally when you consider the subdivision please also think about how the CFA are going to cope when the restaurant goers start parking on their property and start blocking emergency services from being carried out.

    I have been walked past at busy periods and have seen the restaurant vehicles already over spilling onto CFA property. Imagine what added construction vehicles will add to this issue. Little lone what construction vehicles will do to the already pathetic road condition.

    This application should absolutely not go ahead, especially not when all safety aspects - local and emergency services are considered fully.

  26. Tony Remington commented

    Since we arrived in Upper Beaconsfield 37 years ago many things have changed and very few for the betterment of the community. I think it's time to consider why most of us live up here : the quiet rural atmosphere and uncongested lifestyle. It's time to stop the never ending rush to turn this area into another suburban town. Although three townhouses might not seem much in itself it is in fact another foot in the grave of our intended and existing (just) lifestyle. Upper Beaconsfield has reached a stage where we actually have traffic congestion at our main intersection. Unheard of in the past. We don't need developers wrecking things for commercial gain. I object to this development.

  27. N H commented

    I strongly oppose the proposed subdivision of 28 Beaconsfield-Emerald Road.

    This subdivision disrespects the overall neighbourhood character of Beaconsfield Upper- a small town with a rural feel, vast large block sizes with plenty of space between them, lots of trees and minimal built form. The majority of dwellings are single-storey.

    The proposed lot sizes are at odds with their surroundings. Such small lot sizes encourage over-development of the land, inadequate off-street parking and inappropriate amounts of private outdoor space and over-looking. The tiny block sizes encourage double-storey development, polluting the landscape with their visible built form. The proposed removal of vegetation of vegetation along Halford street is also unnecessary.

    As a resident of Beaconsfield Upper I believe this subdivision is inappropriate and promotes over-development of the area.

  28. J H commented

    This road is already over used and heavily congested. To approve would be dangerous for local traffic and the needs of the CFA.

  29. Karen McQ commented

    As a resident of Upper Beaconsfield for over 30 years I strongly object to this subdivision.
    It sets a clear precedent for further small scale developments in what is a rural, country environment and undermining the charm and character of our town.
    The unsealed road in question is pot holed and narrow, and is already congested at various times of the day due to users of the Men’s shed, community centre, cfa and indigenous nursery as well as the residents of Halford Rd. This proposal will only worsen this and create further safety issues for pedestrians, bike riders and car traffic.

    This is inappropriate development in a rural environment.

  30. Fiona Kneen commented

    I don’t think the high density proposal suits the township of upper Beaconsfield. While I appreciate progress, this does not embrace the culture of upper Beaconsfield, nor is it appropriate for the street location. I think the only response is to decline this proposal, and seek an alternate option for the land. I adore my town, and want to continue to uphold the values of the majority of upper Beaconsfield residents!

  31. Kate H commented

    The Upper Beaconsfield Township Strategy Plan (July 2009) created by the Cardinia Shire Council in conjunction with a sub committee for the UBA & local traders identified that;
    Upper Beaconsfield did not provide an appropriate accomodation option for our older residents other than Salisbury house.
    The Neighbourhood Rural Zone was subsequently introduced into the Cardinia Planning Scheme allowing smaller subdivisions within the townships urban growth boundary.
    For those that are newbies to Upper Beaconsfield (15 years or less) please be respectful of our long term residents that are still serving or have served in our various community groups.
    Consideration needs to be given to our older residents before objecting to applications that can potentially help retain them in our community.
    Just think about it…the very place in which you reside is most likely to be a subdivision made from a much larger parcel of land.
    The Upper Beaconsfield township provides for a range of block sizes to support a multitude of uses…unfortunately we have forgotten about the 70 & 80 year olds..let’s start thinking about providing for the oldies that have shaped this unique “community” and encourage development that supports them.
    Where can we fit in a retirement village?

    As for Halford Rd..close it at Beaconsfield Emerald Rd end & create a new entry from Salisbury Rd utilising the council acquired land between the community veggie garden & the Community Centre.

  32. Sarah Howl commented

    I work in uoper beac and love the country feeling of the town just outside suburbia. Sub dividing this block is not safe for the are or roads.
    The roads/ intersection in that area is not safe with the traffic that use it already, adding more will be dangerous.

  33. Anon Ymous commented

    As a resident of upper beaconsfield I am a bit disappointed that this has even come into conversation. Not only is the Halford st a dangerous place to enter/exit it also goes against why most people moved up here - freedom and space. It has no room in our community and will take away the rural feeling.

    Instead why don’t you put the money towards a roundabout at the top of St. George’s road or bringing back $2 games of pool at the Piney

  34. CS commented

    This type of development is about money and nothing else, not what’s best for this area and Upper Beaconsfield. There is no need for this type of dwelling here. I also believe as has happened in other areas, once approval is granted for these types of developments it will become more common and more property owners will follow, if that’s what people want go for it, but find somewhere else where that’s already happening and where people are happy about it.

  35. Leah commented

    As per the above comments there are many reasons I object to this development. This is not in keeping with our beautiful town, and the area around Halford Road is already conjested and difficult to park and drive around. This will be a poor move and I truly hope it is reconsidered.

  36. Kris Lastra commented

    As a long term resident, I strongly oppose this higher density development in Upper Beaconsfield.
    Smaller block sizes are not in keeping with surrounding property sizes and dwellings, and do not fit with the semi-rural nature of the area.
    The roads in the immediate area are already congested, have poor visibility and lack maintenance to keep up with already increased thoroughfare from Pakenham, Emerald and Berwick.
    More houses will see more safety concerns for local residents, their children and the local businesses.
    Upper Beaconsfield should not become small block suburbia.

  37. Fiona Williams commented

    As a resident of Upper Beaconsfield for over 30 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 choose to live here.
    Please do not allow this development to go ahead.

  38. SB commented

    I strongly object to this proposal on several grounds as follows;
    - this will further increase traffic congestion and safety issues at already unsafe road junctions in this area of Beaconsfield-Emerald Road.
    - school children disembark school buses at the McBride Road extension and then cross Beaconsfield Emerald Road toward The General Store. This is already dangerous at school times when traffic is heavy and coming from multiple directions and would only become worse with further residences in Halford Street.
    - wildlife are already being adversely impacted by increased traffic volumes and loss of habitat. Setting a precedent toward higher density development would add to increasingly adverse consequences for wildlife and areas of native vegetation.
    - as extensive development continues in surrounding areas such as Beaconsfield, Officer and Pakenham preserving the natural environment of Upper Beaconsfield is increasingly important for wildlife which face ever shrinking habitat.
    - Upper Beaconsfield is not an urban environment. Higher density housing will destroy the rural atmosphere of the town.

  39. J K commented

    I object to this proposal for the following reasons:
    1: The nature of housing in Beaconsfield Upper is most certainly not high density. The integrity of open space rural living should most definitely not be compromised by high density development in the area.
    2: the introduction of high density development decreases areas for wildlife and vegetation.
    3: the development of more housing on Halford Street will lead to far greater traffic issues on an already dangerous coalition of toads servicing that area.

  40. RD commented

    Beaconsfield Upper is a significant part of a Green Wedge area within Victoria. Because of that classification, if Cardinia Shire allow any subdivision to occur (especially for multiple dwellings), they are going against the whole purpose of conservation of these allocated areas. There are plenty of other suburbs within the growth corridor that are suitable for units and further development. Beaconsfield Upper is not designed to be subdivided and heavily populated. The impacts on the flora and fauna in the area would be devastating if this is ever allowed to happen.

  41. sue Tanner commented

    As long term residents of Upper Beaconsfield we strongly object to this type of subdivision.
    It will set a precedent that could end the rural , relaxed atmosphere of the village.

  42. Marika Godbehere commented

    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.

  43. Bill Godbehere commented

    I oppose the subdivision of 28 Beaconsfield-Emerald Road.

    This subdivision disrespects the overall neighbourhood character of Beaconsfield Upper- a small town with a rural feel, vast large block sizes with plenty of space between them, lots of trees. The majority of dwellings are single-storey.

    The proposed lot sizes are at odds with their surroundings. Such small lot sizes encourage over-development of the land, inadequate off-street parking and inappropriate amounts of private outdoor space and over-looking. The tiny block sizes encourage double-storey development,
    The proposed removal of vegetation along Halford street is also unnecessary.

    As a resident of Beaconsfield Upper I believe this subdivision is inappropriate and promotes over-development of the area.

  44. Deirdre Lewis commented

    I strongly object to the proposal. This is a small town with narrow streets and unable to cope with more traffic than it already has.
    Introduction of this type of high density housing is not in keeping with the area and will potentially forever change the attraction of this town.

  45. Sierra Elsegood commented

    Beaconsfield Upper is a country town, not an urban town. It is not the right place or area for units, especially on Halford street.

    I live on Halford street and it’s hard enough getting in and out with all the pot holes and the cars crowding the side of the road to find parking, not to mention it’s a small road. It’s best not to turn our little country paradise surrounded by nature into an urban, industrial zone.

    It would honestly be a real shame if this was allowed to happen, ruining the small country town atmosphere that we all love.

  46. A D commented

    I strongly object to the proposed subdivision.
    Allowing this to happen will open the door to more high density housing developments, which could be irreversible to our town and the reason why all of us chose to live here.

  47. Jeanette Elliott commented

    This will just make way for mor sub divisions
    More units townhouses smaller dwellings
    It’s not what the people of upper Beaconsfield want why don’t you listen to the people and not the money grabbing developers

  48. Elizabeth Davis commented

    As a resident of Upper Beaconsfield I strongly object to this proposed subdivision. This is a semi rural area and not a suburb with high density properties. Such buildings are not consistent with this area,. To allow a development would set a precedent which would harm the character of Upper Beaconsfield.

  49. Robyn Hale commented

    High density living is not suitable to the neighbourhood character of Upper Beaconsfield, and our little village. Halford Street is a private gravel road and this proposal will increase traffic and be detrimental to the quality of life for residents of Halford Road, a narrow country lane. I’m surprised this complies with the planning scheme as it stands. Existing property sizes should remain as they are in Halford Street to protect the streetscape. With no reticulated gas and in many areas no sewerage or water and lack of public transport, this application should be rejected. Small villages are prevalent in the hills region of Cardinia, and are part of tourist trails that support many small businesses. It’s is important that we protect the small village environment for future generations.

  50. Lee Cummings commented

    We object to the subdividing of land into small blocks and dense dwellings. This does not fit into the open country style that attracted us to living up here. As mentioned in some other comments, the land should be considered for extra carparking, this is becoming a problem at certain times of the day.

  51. C Graves commented

    Increasing the density of housing in the Upper Beaconsfield village to incorporate Units or Townhouses is completely inconsistent with the character, identity and amenity of the township.
    In addition this site does not offer adequate infrastructure to support increased housing density including: safe access and egress, fire refuge, nor connection to mains sewerage,
    This site is located adjacent to the Upper Beaconsfield Fire Brigade that actively attends emergencies 24/7, with associated traffic movements and noise including lights and sirens , inconsistent with private enjoyment of townhouse residences.
    Importantly, this site is also subject to several planning overlays including Heritage and Neighborhood Character.
    Approval of this application would be a planning anomaly, that would set a regrettable precedent.

  52. Joanna Lee commented

    Our family recently moved into the Beaconsfield Upper area to get away from over subdividing. It would be a shame that this would be approved.
    Please say no for the future of Beaconsfield Upper!

  53. Carl commented

    My family and I totally oppose this sort of sub division and development anywhere in Beaconsfield Upper.
    A green wedge zone with overlays.
    It is completely inappropriate for the area and sets a dangerous precedent.

    Us, the community, DREAM of living here because of it's wonderful attributes.
    Space, country feel, biodiversity and nature, tight knit community and so on.

    Enough land clearing and habitat destruction is already occurring in Upper Beac.
    At least in this case we get a say, and the community has spoken loudly and in numbers.
    More houses, more cars, more stress, less vegetation - WE DO NOT NEED or WANT THIS.
    Strongly and passionately oppose.

  54. Christie commented

    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.

  55. Marika Godbehere commented

    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.

  56. Kevin Bailey commented

    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

  57. Belinda commented

    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.

  58. Maree commented

    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.

  59. Sue Benson commented

    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.

  60. Maree commented

    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.

  61. Fred Pavanello commented

    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

  62. Damien Fielding commented

    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.

  1. Have you made a donation or gift to a Councillor or Council employee? You may need to disclose this.

  2. Please use your real full name if possible.

  1. We never display your street address. Why do you need my address?

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