Mod 10 - Modified Layout & Density

I think the developers are being a bit greedy in how many people they are trying to house in such a small area. There will not be enough parking and I dont think they should go any higher than 2 stories.

I will be moving to the area in a few months. The reason I fell in love with the place is the open spaces. Amazing family atmosphere & the quietness of a small beach community .

I love going out for a coffe or a drink. We really need more retail up this end of Casuarina. A Surfclub is a necessity not only for the kids but so the adults can socialise and enjoy our amazing beach.

I'm concerned about how many homes/units & townhouses that will be crammed into such a small space. I think families are looking for room to move & grow. Not boxes on top of each other.

The parking is also a major concern of mine. The amount of development & visitors we will attract needs to be catered for!

The new Coles is great and a was much needed. However the design to me was poorly planned. It's a wind tunnel and when it rains it's slippery and you can't escape. The trolley bays are located in the wrong spots. The carpark should have been one way. It's caos some days accident waiting to happen.

I don't like it...to many homes in such a small space! Four storeys NO WAY!!!!!
Our quiet beachside suburb is turning into a Lego city.

I'm all for a Surfclub & more cafes,restaurants & take away shops. As it's the Casuarina lifestyle.

But there is no room for bunches of townhouses & units.
Sell the land to local families to build their dream home. Then parking & public outrage will not be a problem.
Do the right thing!!!!

Don't spoil the area with to many buildings. We moved here for a reason! A few less homes and a level lower would work better.
I couldn't see on the plans a Surfclub? I really hope a Surfclub is on the agenda. It's a much needed social space up this end of town. The town will die without a social hub. A place to have a cold one after a day at the beach. And watch the kids participate in beach safety (nippers) . Parking seems to be low also.
I hope the park is decent and we see more Cafes and restaraunts.

building height: Casuarina has a unique uncrowded feel that has been produced by the building covenants that all have had to adhere too. buildings are invisible from the beach giving it an unspoilt feel. increasing building height would detract from what has been built right in the heart of the suburb and de visible from the beach spoiling what has so far been kept.

Filling of swale: this would potentially allow higher density buildings closer to existing low density homes, reducing their value and livibility.

Utilisation of fill must not be allowed to increase building height above surrounding areas and again make buildings visible from the beach.

I was attracted to living in this community not only by the beautiful beaches, the bushland buffer zone between the beach and houses but also by council inclusions of open space vegetation areas, extensive cycle-ways and impressed by the use swales as part of community planning.

I do not support the filling in of swales nor further reduction in the width of easements.

Furthermore, I have great concern at the proposal of destroying the beautiful bushland between the ocean and residential land for another beach access.

I have a number of objections in relation to the amended design for the casuarina town centre development, the relate to the following aspects of the design:

Building density, height and Parking overflows
retention of buffer zones and swales
Protection of the coastal dune buffer
Surf lifesaving facilities

The main factors that attracted my wife and I to move to Casuarina were the bike paths, the beautiful buffer of native trees and vegitation, that protect the coastal dunes and the village atmosphere.

As I said in my feedback to the developers after their first community consultation, I do not feel that the inclusion of four story buildings works with a village concept and I am also concerned that providing 248 units will create issues of overflow parking and congestion in surrounding streets, if the developer is not required to provide sufficient car spaces for each unit in these developments.

One of the real pleasures of walking on the beach here is that you do not see hardly any buildings and it would be a real shame if that changes as it makes this area unique.

I also object to the swale being filled in and replaced with a pipe. The swales not only help to filter storm water run off before it enters our creeks and the ocean, they also provide a wildlife refuge. Whilst I have not as yet seen our local curlews in this particular swale, I have seen them in other swales in Casuarina and it concerns me that they may lose further habitat if the swale is filled in. I also feel that the alignment of the road on the northern boundary does not provide a sufficient buffer zone for existing residents and I do not think including the road as part of the overall buffer is valid as it will introduce issue of road noise for those residents.

I am very concerned that these plans seem to show a significant intrusion into our foreshore dunes. At the community consultation, the developers said that they are being asked to create a 3 metre wide access for emergency services, which does make sense however, the reasoning behind this was that this particular beach is likely to be the main beach for kings forest residents.

My concern here is that the amended plans only seem to allow for a storage facility for the Salt surf lifesaving crew. Given the dangerous nature of the surf along this stretch of coast I would have thought that allowance should be made for a full surf lifesaving facility, otherwise it would surely make more sense to widen the beach access at salt where the facilities are currently being upgraded.

The other big objection I have to this plan is that the drawings in Attachment 3 Urban design appear to give the impression of an uninterrupted view of the beach from grand Parade. if this true, this is totally unacceptable. Anyone only has to look at what has happened to the foreshore at kingscliff in front of the caravan park or anywhere along the gold coast beaches, to understand how important protection of foreshore dunes is and I have always been very impressed with the way that successive governments have protected dunes along the NSW coastline.

As I said in my feedback to the developers, I think the overall concept of a mix of residential and mixed business is fine I just think the issues I have raised above need further consideration.

Regards

Steve Bosworth

I am opposed the increasing the height of the buildings within this application to four stories. The current amenity of the beach in the vicinity of the proposed development will be compromised as beach users will see the four story buildings. Currently beach users see the trees and this is what makes this beach so nice and special as opposed to the beach 2 km north at salt where the buildings are visible as the ground has been raised by 4 m. Please do not allow the introduction of four story buildings as it will negatively impact on what makes this area so special and different from the Gold Coast.

HI
I previously made a submission against this proposal, but on review of additional information I would like to rescind that (negative) submission and change my position to supporting this proposal.

As I was not aware in December 2015 that there was to be a modification to Casuarina Town Centre I would strongly like to state my objections to this proposal.
1. The increase in the number of lots from 97-177 and the built form controls to increase height of building along Grand Parade from 3 storey to 4 storey( the accepted regulated height at Casuarina, Salt and Cabarita) means the traffic, congestion, total number of dwellings, environmental impact and total aesthetic plan to keep Casuarina Beach a more village type area which was the original proposal will change this plan to a more densely occupied place similar to others of this nature. I have been into the Tweed Council Office and looked over the submission in more detail and the park, open space and green areas are also not in keeping with the project that was first muted. I also noticed that the reviews of some people (only 130 attended the meeting) were strongly against the 4 storey plan. Perhaps the timing of the meeting in December was very difficult for busy people to attend or even be aware of it. I feel the people should have more say in this matter since it has been taken away from local Government. I have also noticed in our local community that Kingscliff is also wishing to change the accepted height of buildings to 3 storey and not 4.

I strongly object to the nature of this modification to the original plan. The introduction of 4 levels of accommodation goes against the standard of 3 levels that covers all of the current building in the 3 stages of Casuarina, Salt and Kingscliff. It presents problems with excess vehicles parking on the street and increased traffic flow to an area manly family homes. There is also a development, "Kings Forest" approved by your department, 500 metres north on Tweed Valley Road that is to accommodate 440, which will again add even more add more traffic to a quite, peaceful coastal area that is small and personal. I also think that it is sad a decision is made in an office 800 ams away by people who would't understand the local environment.

1. The width of the easement has already been reduced from 36m down to 20m to reduce it further will reduce community open space.
2. The introduction of a traffic road within the 20m buffer zone is contrary to the originating planning intent & purpose of the easement for open space landscaping & pedestrian/cycleway only.
3.I object to any increase of height to any buildings in this development the proposed changes will drastically change the original founding concept of a beach-side village concept, which the developer proudly advertised when we purchased our land.. The proposed modifications will turn Casuarina into a high density urban ghetto, which is contrary to the "Village" spirit we were promised when our family relocated to Casuarina from the metropolis of Gold Coast some 13 years ago.

I strongly disagree with the proposed changes as I worry about the implacations the extra residences would cause.
I feel that the already approved amount was too many to begin with.

I support that more low density housing should apply rather than high density living in units. The area around the Town Village is becoming too crowded as it is.

I object to any increase whatsoever to height levels beyond 3 story. This area is and had been 3 level height and should remain so. It preserves the character of the area and we want no Gold Coast type levels. Once a precedent is set to increase height levels further levels will eventually be requested.

I was extremely disappointed to receive a letter from Clarence Property Group in my letter box in the last 2 weeks. The contents of this letter were, i believe misleading to residents who have had little knowledge of the Modifications being requested by Clarence property group.

I believe Planning NSW have received a copy of this letter. If not, please advise and i will forward to you.

I am writing to object to the proposed amendments to the Concept Plan and Project approval.

The proposal at hand is a major (material) change to that originally proposed and should be subject to a new development plan, not treated as an amendment. The area (no of residents) has also changed (increased) materially over the course of this proposal and they should be allowed a greater say/consultation in what is being proposed. Unfortunately this Development process, particularly in regard to amendments, works against the individual/resident, who often is not aware of all the changes, and who is not given the resources/expertise or the time to be able to read through all the past documents, plus the copious new documents which accompany each development amendment request. (A number of major amendments have already been lodged since the original plan)

No doubt, due to this process, I will have missed other important items/changes that may adversely impact / affect me (incl my wife and family), plus other residents in the area.

Accordingly I will rely on the summary provided by your department in your Letter dated 22/2/16 .

1) I note an increase in Lots - I presume this is to allow an increase in single dwelling homes. If this is the case, then the land usage will be more in line and complimentary to much of the earlier development which has gone on in the area. However if it is to be at the expense of an increase in Heights on some of the buildings, plus an increase in roadways and a loss of Green space I certainly strongly object.

2) From the concept drawings I've seen it appears that there are at least 3 very large Buildings which are proposed to increase in height. Two (2) on Grand Parade fronting Casuarina Way, and 1 (one) toward the Beach. They all look like they will be 4 stories, certainly well out of place and not conforming / complimenting other existing buildings in this wider Casuarina/Salt Village precinct. Existing height restrictions should not be lifted and in fact should be considered (reduced) in the light of Tweed Councils guidelines for Kingscliff. ie 11.5 mts east of Casuarina Way or for that matter Tweed Coast Rd. There also appear to be other Multi level dwellings virtually beach front, which will be out of character with existing beach front housing in this area.

3) Hotel use - I'm not against this removal, but because it is a loss of entertainment / recreational facilities perhaps it should be put to separate public consultation.

4) The Swale - obviously in early planning this was put in place for a reason. I have strong objection to any measures to fill this in or reduce the effectiveness of this corridor. It was originally 38 mtrs wide, had a pedestrian/cycle way, was a Green belt and provided a Buffer zone for the residents North of the Town Centre. From what I understand of the amendments, this area will be greatly reduced (as a recreational / Green Buffer zone), have a roadway (a definite - NO), and an underground pipeline. Underground Pipelines, have major problems capacity/collapse/maintenance etc) plus they are highly attractive and very dangerous to young children.

5) Additional Beach Access - I'll use this to highlight the oversight of the Lifesaving facility. I understand the Developer is now looking into it, due to residents recently contacting Lifesaving NSW. However this planning proposal should take the necessary steps to ensure this important facility is guaranteed and not overlooked or somehow avoided in the future. We note it is now to be in a Building, how will this be policed. Building is not yet in existence, may never be. Probably won't be owned or controlled by the Developer. Right of Access etc etc. Is the additional beach access required for safety or rescue reasons, If so it shouldn't be delayed.

As mentioned this objection is also lodged on behalf of my wife and adult son.

See this article
http://m.tweeddailynews.com.au/news/environment-minister-quizzed-over-mooball-contamin/2975581/
26 people in one tiny street in a very small town where sand mine workings were deposited have now been diagnosed with cancer.
I have video footage of surface Geiger counter readings on and around this site showing radiation readings 4 times the mediation plan required and 3 times the current safe limits. I will release it to the media if you don't require full depth borehole analysis prior to excavation. The dust has also been analysed by Qld government PhD health experts as radioactive and I have expert soil analysis conducted by Qld government PhD experts showing high levels of silica. This area is the highest readings performed on this site for radiation. It is the location of the waste spoils of the mine. If you don't put in strict controls and 1 particle of this toxic dust lands on our homes I will release every report and video footage. I have about 10 videos walking over this site over bare exposed excavated soil during earthmoving. This may very well shut the entire site down forever. Do your job and stop accepting the developers 'independent' paid consultants!!

After viewing the plans and documents provided I consider that the proposed modification request has 5 fundamental flaws:

1. No building east of Casuarina Way should be greater than 11 metres in height from ground level. This is presently the case and I feel the current 3 storey height level is a comfortable limit due to its impact upon the built and natural form of the location and propensity to cast shadows. The plans show 3 buildings with building heights of 4 storeys, being greater than 11 metres in height. This increase in permitted height is not in keeping with the character of the area as those buildings will be imposing upon the amenity and views of the surrounding properties and public spaces.

The existing building adjacent (to the north) of the sites in question is the Santai Resort. This 3 storey building is on an elevated part of the landscape and should represent the highest point in the estate. Buildings on the proposed sites to the south of Santai should taper down to follow the ground level. Maintaining a height consistent with the Santai building for that distance will create a large wall-like effect of an imposing scale and will ruin the built form skyline in that location.

2. The sites immediately east of Casuarina way presently showing a 4 storey height have an unreasonable bulky scale. The building footprints appear massive and dominate the site. The buildings drawn in the plans, whilst concept in nature, are likely to be a most probable end product. Thus the current scale lends itself to a utilitarian and Stalinist built form shown in the drawings. These sites need to have the bulk and scale reduced. Because of their prominent position on the landscape any approvals should be conditioned to require those buildings to have a very high standard of architectural merit and urban design: particularly in facade treatments and softening by appropriate landscaping.

3. The width of the environmental buffer in the present swale area is insufficient. The current plan to fill the swale and pipe the water is commendable however the plan to insert a road within that 20m buffer provides a far greater impact upon surrounding residents than the proposed 8 metre buffer will adequately absorb. The buffer should be at least doubled in width.

4. The plans do not show any location for the surf lifesaving facilities, nor any access to the beach for lifesaving services. Surf lifesaving services and their adjunct facilities are vital for this beach due to the number of beach users and the currents and rips along this stretch. Only a few days ago at a nearby beach there was one man drowned and others left in a critical state in hospital after swimming at an unpatrolled beach. I think this sadly highlights the very real need for lifesaving services and well located sufficiently sized facilities with good direct access to the beach in this location. This facility should make it as easy and safe as possible for lifesaving services to be carried out on this beach.

5. Insufficient green space and parks
The plans don't seem to show an adequate level of parks, buffers and general public open space. I think this needs to be increased.

General comments
I am aware that other parts of the estate are not being adequately maintained by the council due to a lack of available funds. For example, the lights along the beachside pathway/cycleway are not working and need replacing. The park embellishments (seats, bins, paths, bridges, equipment) require improving, maintaining or replacing. Perhaps the development could be conditioned to require the developer (and subsequent developers) to contribute special funding (over and above the required infrastructure contributions) to repair and replace those assets upon commencement of works attached to this approval. Additionally, because of the location close to the sea, the rate of deterioration and corrosion on buildings, public assets and equipment is amplified and requires far more regular maintenance for property owners and the council alike. This needs to be considered when conditioning any development for servicing and the choice of equipment and materials to be used.

If the above issues were changed to what I have suggested, I would support the entire proposal.

I object to it because I want more green space to the wild life.

If Blue Horziron Drive in the pocket Is going to be a busy road that will access the proposed caduarina town centre, it needs to be widened, as it stands it is a very narrow road.

Thanks