Mod 10 - Modified Layout & Density

The width of the easement has already been reduced from 36m down to 20m and current plans to reduce it further down to 10.5m 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.
This will cause adverse amenity impacts to neighbouring residents due to increase noise, increase light spillage, increase security concerns and decrease landscape and visual buffer to future development. Therefore I object to the proposed reduction of the easement.

The new application is a big improvement on the existing approval, especially in that it reduces the overall building density by around 35% compared to Consolidated's old masterplan and still delivers all the retail, cafe & community components in the original approval.

I am objecting to the planning of Casuarina Town Centre, the buffer zone has been already decreased and now the developers want to halve that! We live in a lovely area and do not want the developers to alter our lovely walkways and public areas,. They were approved for 97 lots and now they want 177, they also want to increase the height of the buildings. Please don't let this happen.

I would like to object the Modification request to Casuarina Town Centre. The developers have already had the buffer zone decreased and now they want to halve that size. They have been approved for 97 lots and they are now applying to
increase that to 177, that is crazy!! They also want to increase the height of the buildings permitted along Grand Pde. Please
look at this and make this area public friendly as all this area is, we don't want to end up like the Gold Coast!!

Extract from Dallas & Tuck research in radiation etc from mine beach workings. '......Concentrated waste mineral sands were buried in places on old mine sites. These wastes may contain thorium, which is radioactive (Dallas & Tuck, 2008). Although naturally occurring along beaches, once concentrated, these radioactive materials are a potential health hazard and need to be managed.'

Your Department are aware of the high radiation levels of this site and in particular 'hot spots' of excessively high radiation readings as determined in the Environmental report conducted by GHD for Casuarina Town Centre. The radiation experts recommendations were not followed. One of those very hot spots is in 'Town Centre'!

This report was commissioned by Kings Beach No.2 for Casuarina Town Centre where the mine workings were buried. Why has this report in your Department gone missing? See this report http://willkemp.net.au/enviroscience/land-degradation-and-rehabilitation-in-coastal-sand-mining/#dallas_tuck2008

My wife, Amanda Evans and I reside at the above address and object to the application. Our reasons are as follows.




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.


9. No where else in the township of Casuarina, has any developer chosen this course. Other easements remain at 20M or the swale in its entirety remains.

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

3. The introduction of traffic-able road will cause adverse amenity impacts on neighboring 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. Neighboring residents that purchased land and built in the area have done so based on planning approvals which required 36 m to 20 m easement for landscape buffering and would have not reasonable contemplated such to include a traffic-able road.

5. The introduction of a traffic-able road is likely to adversely impact on neighboring 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 internalize the traffic-able road within the master planning community rather than adjacent to existing residential properties.

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

I would like to express my concerns regarding the Casuarina sub Division in regards to the reduction of the easement from 20 metres to 10.5 metres to allow the construction of a road and pathway. This is a place I have visited on many occasions. My concerns are in respect to the safety of both pedestrians and cyclist with the co use of the road. In summer this is a very popular place for families to holiday this increased number of children who make good use of bikeways and pathways to access the beach. Even with a speed restriction of 50kms or less as these children are generally wearing nothing more than either bathers or shorts and top increases the risk of severe injury in a collision or near collision with a motor vehicle. Also sadly some motorist do not abide by speed limits especially on roads that would be less inclined to be frequented by the police. I am in favour of bike ways and walking paths however another road would increase the risk of accidents and would also take away the reason for people to visit and live in that it is a safe environment for their children.

This application is contrary to the intent of the original planning approval.

I do not believe that the applicant has demonstrated sufficient merit to warrant approval of this application, which if it were to be approved, would result in: -

1. Increase noise impacts
2. Increase light spillage
3. Increase security concern for residents
4. Decrease in landscape and visual buffer to future development

I purchased land only 300 metres from the area affected by this application, and I did so having full knowledge of the approved development, and the requirement of the planning approvals for landscape buffering that does NOT include a trafficable road.

Importantly, it appears that the developer has adequate capacity to place the proposed road in other locations that do not affect the required landscape buffering zone.

In seeking to place the trafficable road within the landscape buffering zone, the developer is seeking to increase their developable area at the expense of the community, including neighbouring property owners like myself, who purchased their land in the belief that such a proposal would never be permitted.

I expect the proposed changes that would decrease the buffer zone to be rejected, and in the future I will be able to utilise the full landscape area, pedestrian paths, and bicycle paths as intended and required by the original planning approval.

I live on a side road off Casuarina Way and I consider increasing the lot numbers from 97 to 177 would put a lot more traffic on the roads, including the main roads out onto Tweed Coast Rd. I went into the tweed office and viewed the plans. ,Not happy with 4 level high rise in this area.

I object the developer being allowed to reduce the extent of the landscape buffer by 50%. I believe the reduction of community open space is not conducive to a happy, active and greener community which Casuarina prides itself on. I believe the amount of space that was originally planned and approved for land sales is adequate and further development would only cause higher density living which would increase noise, traffic and loss of community space.

I am against raising the height of any of the buidlings. One of the best things about living in Casuarina is that you can't see any buildings from the beach. This maintains the beach's natural feeling. This must be maintained so as not to spoil the astmosphere of the area.

Re the application for Casuarina Town Centre MP 06_0258 MOD 10, Mixed Use Subdivision (Concept Plan):



Having reviewed in full the documents posted on the Department of Planning & Environment website, I strongly support this application to modify the existing Town Centre approval. I believe it is a significant improvement on the current masterplan.



I urge your department to approve this application as we Casuarina residents have waited far too long for our Town Centre to be delivered. At the public information night the developer stated that they wanted to get on and start construction as soon as possible. They should be allowed to do so, especially as this modified plan will deliver a better Town Centre than the one currently approved.



I believe the following features of this application are substantial improvements:



1. The reduction in density from 474 dwellings in the original plan to 330 dwellings now.
2. The preservation of the currently approved number of public car parks despite the reduction in density. This is an excellent outcome.
3. The developer has removed the three-storey residential and hotel buildings along the northern boundary, which will be replaced by single and two storey dwellings. The removal of these three-storey buildings is more in keeping with the building scale of the surrounding area and should resolve problems associated with loss of privacy and amenity under the current approval.
4. The filling of the ditch on the northern boundary will provide a wide buffer of landscaping and a pedestrian/cycleway connected to the Town Centre. This is a much more desirable finish than the current treatment of the ditch.
5. The new plan retains the main street's retail/cafe strip and the beachfront park, which are the key components of the Town Centre in terms of amenity for Casuarina residents.

To repeat, this application has my strong support and I would like to see it approved without delay. Give us our (new & better) Town Centre.

Thank you,

Lisa Scott

I object to the increase in height limit of this modification. Tweed shire council, has not allowed more then 3 stories on the tweed coast. I do not believe this should be changed as it sets a precedent for everywhere else. Casuarina has no development over 3 stories nore the other adjascent town ships. Casuarina is not a highly developed area and an increase in building height would be very much out of keeping destroying the feeling of the area.

I object to the increase in height limit of this modification. Tweed shire council, has not allowed more then 3 stories on the tweed coast. I do not believe this should be changed as it sets a precedent for everywhere else. Casuarina has no development over 3 stories nor the other adjascent town ships. Casuarina is not a highly developed area and an increase in building height would be very much out of keeping destroying the feeling of the area.
I also object to the increse in density of dwellings. This almost doubles the apporoved amount and would change from medium density to higher density housing in a very small area. Development in Casuarina in the past where higher density or holiday rental has shown parking becomes a problem as holiday rentals are used permanatly and not as intended and puts th parking load onto the street.

I object to the proposed modification for the approved lot layout and increase in the number of lots permitted on-site from 97-177 and the built form controls to increase the height of buildings permitted along Grand Parade.

I believe this will have a substantial negative impact on the neighbourhood.

I object to the modification of the approved lot layout and increase in the number of lots permitted on-site from 97-177 and modification of the built form controls to increase the height of buildings permitted along Grand Parade.

I believe this will have a substantial negative impact on the neighbourhood.

Hi,

It is with great regret that I write this objection to your change to the master plan for the Casuarina Town Centre, MP 06_0258 MOD 10, Mixed Use Subdivision (Concept Plan). There is no valid reason to change from 3 storeys to 4, apart from more money into the developers pocket. The whole Kingscliff, Salt, Seaside, and Casuarina, areas have been restricted to 3 storeys for a very long time and it allows this whole coastline to be unique. Why change it? For if you do, then that will mean, another change in the future, and then another one, and before you know it we will be living in a neighbourhood not too dissimilar to the Gold Coast. Leave the plan alone, and let us live in the community we thought we would be living in when we first came to this area.

With the increasing number of residents and rate payers in the area buying into an area advertised about its coastal qualities and lifestyle I believe the extension of Lifeguard services along Casuarina and the Tweed Coast is crucial.
It is a magnificent coastline and it is disappointing the number of tourists and locals that can not utilise the beaches on offer outside of the designated and limited Lifeguard hours that are currently offered.
A lengthened lifeguard service will not only attract more tourism to drive the local economy it will help sustain local business and developments.

Re: Coast Road, Casuarina Beach, Kingscliff South (Lot 144 DP 1030322, Lot 3 DP 1042119, Lot 13 DP 1014470 and Part Lot 223 1048494)

I have been an owner-resident at Casuarina since 2003. My wife and I bought into an approved estate, but we and our neighbours have protested and witnessed continual erosion of promises and fudging of boundaries - always to the detriment of residents expectations.
The current proposal to further reduce the width of a vegetated open space buffer (originally 36 metres wide) from 20 metres to eight metres plus road and pathway is the latest in a list of broken promises and shifted goal posts.
There is also a proposal to increase building levels to four stories in adjoining land. Previous such moves were successfully rebutted in another area on the estate.
Even established unit blocks with underground parking have local streets partially blocked with excessive cars, making traffic hazardous and garbage collection difficult.
Just how does a developer manage to alter established and approved plans? The process is a constant mystery to us and we always notice that the changes disadvantage residents to the benefit of developers.
The whole process seems flawed, if not illegal. I therefore submit that the development application be revisited.

Ross Pierce, 2 Cudgerie Court, Casuarina (ross.pierce @gmail.com)