Mod 10 - Modified Layout & Density

Looking forward to stage two starting!!
Having a Coles & other specialty shops near by is amazing!
I just hope the Surf Club goes ahead. As we need a patrolled beach close by so desperately . And it would be fantastic for the kid's to pop across the road for Nippers & be safe.
I've heard a lot of rumours & am not sure what else is going in other than housing??
I would love to see more cafe's & restaurants .
And a licensed bar would be incredible. No more catching the bus to Salt bar & Cudgen Surfclub . I think that is something we really need at this end of town. In fact i think it is a must!!

The separation between the proposed town centre and the residential lots on the northern boundary has always been a very sensitive subject with the residents of Casuarina and the wider community. The originating approval was for an open drainage swale which was within a 36m wide easement.
This easement provided an open space and vegetation corridor between the future town centre and residential lots.
This was a major benefit to the lots that aligned the northern boundary and the prices of the lots reflected this.
We like the other residents including Santai Resort that bought blocks that back onto the swale have designed and built taking in account the aspect and benefits that the swale / open space corridor provided.
In 2009 the town centre plans were developed and lodged with State Government for approval. The plans included the replacement of the swale with underground stormwater pipe drainage and the reduction of the easement to 15m.
This was highly contested by the Casuarina residents and wider community.
The determination by State Government was to replace the swale with an underground drainage stormwater system and provide a 20m wide east west open space easement which was to be recontoured, grassed and landscaped and to include 3m wide cycleway / walkway constructed thereon.
This was the agreed compromised position which would maintain public amenity and provide an appropriate buffer distance between the proposed town centre and the adjoining properties.
The current submitted plans is to reduce the agreed 20m separation to 10.5m comprising of 8m of vegetation and a 2.5m wide footpath. This is a further 50% reduction in the already compromised separation width !!!
The submission also is to construct a road within the approved 20m wide zone.
If approved, this will result in less open space landscaping and introduce amenity impacts for all adjoining residents that would have not been reasonably contemplated but have since purchased and built in the area. Of course, the developer stands to gain additional developable area by building the road closer to existing residents rather than internal to their own development. Enough is enough of these greedy developers changing the goal posts and pushing their problems onto the existing community.
1. The width of the easement has already been reduced from 36m down to 20m and current plans to introduce a road will diminish its effective width even further to the disadvantage of neighbouring residents.
2. The introduction of a traffic road is contrary to the originating planning intent and purpose of the easement for open space landscape planting and pedestrian / cycleway only.
3. The introduction of trafficable road will cause adverse amenity impacts on neighbouring residents due to:
a. Increase noise impacts
b. Increase light spillage
c. Increase security concerns
d. Decrease landscape and visual buffer to future development
4. Neighbouring residents that purchased land and built in the area have done so based on planning approvals which required 36m to 20m easement for landscape buffering and would have not reasonable contemplated such to include a trafficable road.
5. The introduction of a trafficable road is likely to adversely impact on neighbouring resident's property values.
6. The proposal conflicts with earlier planning permits and there is not sufficient planning merit or grounds to overcome the conflict.
7. The developer has adequate capacity to internalise the trafficable road within the master planning community rather than adjacent to existing residential properties.
8. The developer is merely seeking to increase their developable area at the expense of neighbouring residents by accommodating the road within an area always intended for landscape buffer planting and pedestrian/cycle access only.
We request the current approved 20m separation be adopted in the current plans.

Casuarina Town Centre will have over 330 residences. 248 units and 82 land lots for housing. Yet they only propose 172 car parking spaces!! How is this possible? They are proposing retail and commercial spaces as well yet where will the customers park. This Town Centre will become a ghetto. It will be a congested quagmire with no car parks for anyone. When Kings Forest commences immediately inland with 10,000 plus residences this Town centre will be the closest public access point to the beach. Yet there will only be 172 car parking spaces, which won't even be enough for the residents. Small business will go bankrupt as there wont be any car parking spaces for their customers. Adjoining residential streets will become so congested that the entire community will become a car parking lot for the Town Centre that has no car parking spaces. The developer's excuse for not providing more car parking spaces was that the land is too small and they aren't allowed to encroach upon the dunes! Really? How about you reduce your yield? The developer lied in the Community Consultation report submitted to NSW Planning (See Attachment 7 - Village Consultation Report in this submission) about what even their own feedback identified as what was the most important issue to the community and its residents. See their own feedback results. Residents stated time and again (and were most concerned) about it being over developed, no open spaces, no street parking, no recreational facilities for children. This developer has lied. Please SAVE our TOWN from these developers!

This development has already created much controversy with the excessive radioactive and positively analysed high levels of silica dust being blown all over the community. Radioactive studies are available showing extreme radioactive levels with video footage of this site area to prove it and scientifically analysed independent Qld Government silica dust reports showing excessive levels of silica in this dust. These are additional videos other than previously shown to your Department. The QLD health radiation expert who was originally commissioned to conduct the radiation studies on this area reported that when they were trying to excavate the radioactive soil and you couldn't see the boom of the excavator as it was that deep and the radioactive levels were 'off the screen'! The worst area is this Town Centre development and particularly the North East corner where the sand mine tailings ponds were and where all the heavy radioactive metals were dumped. Recommendations for full depth borehole radiation analysis by that expert across the site I believe was not done to the level required even though it was required by the NSW Planning Environmental conditions in the original approvals for this development. 26 people have been diagnosed in nearby Mooball with cancer in 1 (ONE) street (YES ONE STREET) - see news article by local doctor - where the sand mine workings were deposited and now people live over the top of those workings. This site was required to be remediated to 0.35 radiation level with 2 metres of top soil yet now this development will be digging deep into this radioactive soil to create basement car parking. God help those civil workers that are exposed to this extreme radioactivity during the excavation stage and basement building stage and those that then have to live over this soil. I have video footage of these very areas showing over 1.4 using a calibrated scientific radiation meter (and I'm qualified with a Master's Degree to do so). God help anyone who lives in these residences. God help any pregnant women living in this Town Centre! 26 people diagnosed in one street in nearby Mooball will only be a drop in the Ocean if this site radiation doesn't get managed properly. I do not believe Tweed Council are capable of properly managing, supervising or enforcing the development conditions. Their performance in the last stage was woeful. Of interest the person who was the main contact for the developer during the last most recent Mixed Use SubDivision stage of development of this Town Centre from Hutchinson Builders Mr. Grant Le Boutillier. He regularly and vigorously defended and rebutted any complaints about this last stage of development. I would be curious to know did he declare to you that he was going to be the very first person to build on this development. Did he declare that he had, I believe, a conflict of interest when communicating with your Department when he acted for Hutchinson Builders and the Developer whilst he so vigorously rebutted every claim about dust, radiation, noise etc etc. You may wish to go back and look at the matters raised now that this fact has come to light. Please make sure this development doesn't allow its radioactive and silica dust to once again blanket our community. Please don't let others be exposed to life threatening radioactivity.

This Town Centre will have over 330 residences. That means approximately 1,000 people will live here. If this is supposed to be a Town Centre then where are the open spaces? Where are the facilities for the children and youth. where are the playgrounds, parks and open spaces. Where is the vegetation? This site is so over developed. A friend of mine who is a Town Planner and knows people within Clarence Property who are the developers of this Town Centre also acknowledge how over developed this centre is just to maximise their yield. He was very surprised about the extreme density of this town centre and how they could possibly get away with it having so many residences with such a lack of lifestyle infrastructure for the residents. The plans must change and provide for more open spaces, more parks, more playgrounds, more car spaces, more bikeways. I cannot believe that in this day and age a Town Planner / Developer could possibly think that this design is acceptable to human habitation. Car parking should be mandated to have 400 car spaces within 200m. there should be mandatory open spaces, playgrounds, recreation facilities. Otherwise it will go down as a 'what not to do' case study.

I would like to raise two concerns regarding this development :
1. The width of the easement has already been reduced from 36m down to 20m and current plans to introduce a road will diminish its effective width even further to the disadvantage of neighbouring residents.
2. The introduction of a traffic road is contrary to the originating planning intent and purpose of the easement for open space landscape planting and pedestrian / cycleway only.

I strongly oppose this aspect of the proposed town centre.

As a resident and owner of a business in the kingscliff and casuarina area I object to parts of the proposed town centre plans for the following reasons:
1. Neighbouring residents that purchased land and built in the area have done so based on planning approvals which required 36m to 20m easement for landscape buffering and would have not reasonable contemplated such to include a trafficable road.
2. The introduction of a trafficable road is likely to adversely impact on neighbouring resident's property values.
3. The proposal conflicts with earlier planning permits and there is not sufficient planning merit or grounds to overcome the conflict.
4. The developer has adequate capacity to internalise the trafficable road within the master planning community rather than adjacent to existing residential properties.

We own a unit in Santai Resort which over looks the swale which divides the existing residents of Casuarina and the future town centre.
At the time of purchasing our unit off the plan 10 years ago, we were told by the developer the 36m drainage easement behind the resort would never be built on.
The resort has been designed based on this with many balconies protruding right up the southern boundary.
The successful reduction of the easement width from 36m to 20m in 2009 was a massive blow for the Santai unit owners as well as the Casuarina community.
The determination by State Government was the following - quote :
06_0258 MOD 1 : Director Generals Report
a. page 3 : "the existing open drainage easement will no longer be created for stormwater drainage and infiltration purposes. This will instead allow for the creation of a 20m wide landscaped pedestrian/cycleway easement to be created along the existing easement route..."
b. page 6 : The filling of the existing easement will create a 20m wide corridor of public open space and provide a landscaped connection for pedestrians and cyclists ...."
c. page 7 : Proposed section of the 20m wide dedication is included in the report
06_0258 MOD 1 : Major Project Assessment Report
a. page 33 : The Department considers the proposal to fill the ease-west drainage easement and provide a 20m wide open space corridor with a realigned pedestrian cycleway as a favorable development outcome and one which provides a significant pubic benefit. The easement will be converted into a landscaped open space corridor for public benefit which will be dedicated to and maintained by council"
b. page 34 : "the proponent has outlined in the Statement of Commitments that landscaping works will be undertaken within the open space/drainage easement, consisting mostly of native plant species which is anticipated to improve habitat areas for local fauna species"
"the proponent is committed to increasing the open space to 20m to width to ensure an appropriate amount of open space is provided between the existing properties to the north and any future development on adjoining lots within the town center"
"The proposed landscaping works between the town center and adjoining properties will help mitigate the impacts of increased noise generation. The landscaping works will also assist in maintaining a level of privacy for those properties which have rear balconies overlooking the easement/swale"

06_0258 MOD 2: Modification of Ministers Approval
a. pages 2 and 3 detail the approved drawings which include drawings DA26L and DA44D. Both of these drawings detail the 20m wide dedicated
b. Pedestrian links landscaping drawing - typical section details the proposed landscaping of the 20m wide dedication

The Developer in is current submission has totally ignored what was approved by the State Government as the requirements for the future town centre.
We residents and property owners at Casuarina that live directly on the boundary of the swale are looking to State Government to enforce and honour what has been previously approved.
We all have to abide by guide lines and rules when building our houses, the developer needs to do the same when designing the town centre.
We are sick of greedy developers changing the goal posts and pushing their problems onto the existing community.
The developer has adequate capacity to move the proposed road further south out of the 20m dedication zone or internalize the trafficable road within the town center rather than adjacent to existing residential properties.
The developer is merely seeking to increase their developable area at the expense of the community by decreasing the approved buffer zone and accommodating a road within an area always intended for landscape buffer planting and pedestrian / cycle access only.
We look to State Government for a favorable resolution on this.
Thanks
.

We refer to the Director Generals Report of the current determination 06_0258 MOD 1 regarding the swale and separation between the existing residents of Casuarina.

"The existing open drainage easement will no longer be created for stormwater drainage and infiltration purposes. This will instead allow for the creation of a 20m wide landscaped pedestrian/cycleway easement to be created along the existing easement route..."
"The filling of the existing easement will create a 20m wide corridor of public open space and provide a landscaped connection for pedestrians and cyclists ...."
" The Department considers the proposal to fill the ease-west drainage easement and provide a 20m wide open space corridor with a realigned pedestrian cycleway as a favourable development outcome and one which provides a significant public benefit. The easement will be converted into a landscaped open space corridor for public benefit which will be dedicated to and maintained by council"
"The proponent is committed to increasing the open space to 20m to width to ensure an appropriate amount of open space is provided between the existing properties to the north and any future development on adjoining lots within the town centre"

The proposal by the developer to decrease the 20m landscaped pedestrian / cycleway easement is unacceptable and rejected.

The width of the easement has already been reduced from 36m down to 20m and current plans to introduce a road within the 20m zone will diminish its effective width even further to the disadvantage of neighbouring residents.
The introduction of a traffic road is contrary to the originating planning intent and purpose of the easement for open space landscape planting and pedestrian / cycleway

The developer has adequate capacity to move the proposed road further south out of the 20m dedication zone or internalize the trafficable road within the town centre rather than adjacent to existing residential properties.

We are seeking State Government to enforce the 20m wide landscaped pedestrian/cycleway that was promised to the residents of Casuarina as a favourable compromise with the reduction of the 36m swale in the last determination.

Thanks
________________________________________

Living in this area, our family believes that subdividing land into small blocks will change the area. Doubling the number of blocks will totally change the feel and value of the Casuarina area. Casuarina house have an average value of over $900000 and we would like the value of our house to continue to grow. By adding small blocks this will not happen. Our area does not have the facilities to cope with a huge expansion of this nature.

There is no reason for buildings heights to be raised above 3 stories in our area/ No other developments from Kingscliff to past Pottsville have any building above this and would only create an eyesore. House directly around that area would also definitely facing price value reductions having tall buildings overshadow them. We have not had this in our area and don't need it.

I object this modification of reducing 20m wide landscape zone to a 10.5m zone for these reasons

1:less green in the area which is already becoming crowded and reduce greatly recreational areas.

2:The road will increase noise and decrease open space

3: The increase of number of lots from 97 to 177 ,almost double,will cause tremendous amount of congestion in the area.
It will be overcrowded.

We dont want inner city blocks here.It was planned as a village not a city
We don't want to lose community open space that developers can make more money.Greed is not good

1. The width of the easement has already been reduced from 36m down to 20m and current plans to introduce a road will diminish its effective width even further to the disadvantage of neighbouring residents.

2. The introduction of a traffic road is contrary to the originating planning intent and purpose of the easement for open space landscape planting and pedestrian / cycleway.

3. Decrease landscape and visual buffer to future development.

4. Neighbouring residents that purchased land and built in the area have done so based on planning approvals which required 36m to 20m easement for landscape buffering and have not contemplated such to include a trafficable road.

5. The proposal conflicts with earlier planning permits and there is not sufficient planning merit or grounds to overcome the conflict.

6. The developer has adequate capacity to internalise the trafficable road within the master planning community rather than adjacent to existing residential properties.

7. The developer is merely seeking to increase their developable area at the expense of neighbouring residents by accommodating the road within an area always intended for landscape buffer planting and pedestrian/cycle access only.

Objections:
Traffic will cause amenity impacts on neighbouring residents due to increase noise, light spillage security concerns and decrease landscape buffer to future deveolpments.
It conflicts with earlier planning permits and there is not sufficient planning merits or grounds to overcome conflict.
Residents that purchased land and built in the area have done so on planning approvals which required 36m to 20 m easement for landscape buffering.
This traffic road within 20m buffer zone is a contradiction as it was intended for landscape, walking track and cycling.
The width of easement has already been reduced from 36m to 30 and current plans to reduce it further to 10.5 will reduce open community space.
Developer has adequate capacity to move the proposed road south out of the 20m zone or internalize the trafficable road within town centre master planning rather than adjacent to existing residential properties.
Developer is merely seeking to increase their developable area at the expense of the community by decreasing buffer zone and accommodating a road within the area always intended for landscape buffer planting and pedestrian/cycle access only.

The increase of the number of lots permitted on-site from 97 to 177 will have a huge impact on the number of cars travelling through the area. There is only one road in and out of Casuarina, with the opening of the supermarket and surrounding housing development the traffic along Casuarina Way has already increased significantly. There is no benefit to the local area by having more residences built. How does the one road cope with more traffic all using that road in and out of the area?

The width of the easement has already been reduced from 36m down to 20m and current plans to reduce it further down to10.5m will reduce the available community open space.
The introduction of a traffic road within the 20m buffer zone is contrary to the originating planning intent and purpose of the easement for open space landscape planting and pedestrian/cycleway only.
The proposal conflicts with earlier planning permits and there is not sufficient planning merit or grounds to overcome the conflict.
The introduction of trafficable road will cause adverse amenity impacts on neighbouring residents due to increase in noise, light spillage, increase security concerns and decrease landscape and visual buffer to future developments.
Neighbouring residents that purchased land and built in the area have done so based on planning approvals which required 36m to 20m easement for landscape buffering and would not have reasonable contemplated such to include a trafficable road.
The developer has adequate capacity to move the proposed road south out of the 20m zone or internalize the trafficable road within the town centre master planning rather thatn adjacent to existing residential properties.
The developer is merely seeing to increase their developable area at the expense of the community by decreasing the buffer zone and accommodating a road within an area always intended for landscape buffer planting and pedestrian/cycle access only.

I object to 4 storeys. Maximum 3 storey dwellings. Minimum of 2 car parking spaces per unit.

My objection is primarily against the increased density of housing, the height increase over existing buildings e.g. Santi and the reduced and inadequate provision of green space and walk and cycle ways. This is simply a grab for higher density with no regard for the existing character of Casuarina and Salt.
Existing and adjacent residential land would be devalued by the increased height profile, the lack of community facilities and the social impact of such a concentration of unit/townhouse development in an area with a predominate family focus.

My family and I OBJECT to the developer of Casuarina Town Centre's application to reduce the extent of the landscape buffer between the town centre and the existing residents on the northern boundary including Santai Resort on the following grounds:
1. The width of the easement has already been reduced from 36 m down to 20 m and current plans to reduce it further down to 10.5m will reduce the available community open space.
2. The introduction of a traffic road within the 20m buffer zone is contrary to the original planning intent and purpose of the easement for open space landscape planting and pedestrian/cycleway only.
3. The proposal conflicts with earlier planning permits and there is not sufficient planning merit or grounds to overcome the conflict.
4. The introduction of a trafficable road will cause adverse amenity impact on neighboring residents due to: (a). Increase nose impacts; (b). Increase light spillage; (c) increase security concerns and (d) decrease landscape and visual buffer to future development.
5. Neighbouring residents that purchased land and built in the area have done so based on planning approvals which required 36m to 20m easement for landscape buffering and would have purchased land elsewhere.
6. The developer has adequate capacity to move the proposed road south out of the 20 m zone or internalise the trafficable road within the town centre master planning rather than adjacent to existing residential properties.
7. The developer is merely seeking to increase their developable area at the expense of the community by decreasing the buffer zone and accommodating a road within an area always intended for landscape bugger planting and pedestrian/cycle access only.

CASUARINA IS A RAPIDLY GROWING COMMUNITY AND WE NEED TO ENSURE WE PLAN FOR THE FUTURE, WHICH INCLUDES PROVIDING ADEQUATE PARKS, OPEN SPACES, VEGETATION AREAS, AND CYCLEWAYS ETC. APPROVAL OF THESE PLANS WILL RESULT IN LESS OPEN SPACE LANDSCAPING AND WILL INTRODUCE AMENITY IMPACTS FOR ADJOINING RESIDENTS WHO PURCHASED LAND AND BUILT IN THE AREA BASED ON PREVIOUS PLANNING PERMITS AND APPROVALS.

My family and I OBJECT to the developer of Casuarina Town Centre's application to reduce the extent of the landscape buffer between the town centre and the existing residents on the northern boundary including Santai Resort on the following grounds:
1. The width of the easement has already been reduced from 36 m down to 20 m and current plans to reduce it further down to 10.5m will reduce the available community open space.
2. The introduction of a traffic road within the 20m buffer zone is contrary to the original planning intent and purpose of the easement for open space landscape planting and pedestrian/cycleway only.
3. The proposal conflicts with earlier planning permits and there is not sufficient planning merit or grounds to overcome the conflict.
4. The introduction of a trafficable road will cause adverse amenity impact on neighboring residents due to: (a). Increase nose impacts; (b). Increase light spillage; (c) increase security concerns and (d) decrease landscape and visual buffer to future development.
5. Neighbouring residents that purchased land and built in the area have done so based on planning approvals which required 36m to 20m easement for landscape buffering and would have purchased land elsewhere.
6. The developer has adequate capacity to move the proposed road south out of the 20 m zone or internalise the trafficable road within the town centre master planning rather than adjacent to existing residential properties.
7. The developer is merely seeking to increase their developable area at the expense of the community by decreasing the buffer zone and accommodating a road within an area always intended for landscape bugger planting and pedestrian/cycle access only.

CASUARINA IS A RAPIDLY GROWING COMMUNITY AND WE NEED TO ENSURE WE PLAN FOR THE FUTURE, WHICH INCLUDES PROVIDING ADEQUATE PARKS, OPEN SPACES, VEGETATION AREAS, AND CYCLEWAYS ETC. APPROVAL OF THESE PLANS WILL RESULT IN LESS OPEN SPACE LANDSCAPING AND WILL INTRODUCE AMENITY IMPACTS FOR ADJOINING RESIDENTS WHO PURCHASED LAND AND BUILT IN THE AREA BASED ON PREVIOUS PLANNING PERMITS AND APPROVALS.

I fully support this proposal.