Mod 10 - Modified Layout & Density

Re - Casuarina Town Centre, MP 06_0258 MOD 10, Mixed Use Subdivision (Concept Plan) - Tweed Coast Road, Casuarina Beach, NSW, 2487

We write to you re the above and seek your consideration of the below.

We are the owners of Lot 235 Beech Lane, Casuarina Beach that directly abuts the Swale that this Concept plan looks to RESUME.

We purchased this block in 2003 and have subsequently built a home on the lot based on a swale easement of 36 meters. You will note that since the time of inducement to purchase, the same developer and subsequent developer has attempted to resume the swale for their direct FINANCIAL GAIN and to the existing LANDHOLDERS DETERMENT. These landholders have already enriched the developer and invested in building the local community that is now Casuarina Beach.

We refer to whittling down of the SWALE easement over the last 14 years from 36 Meters to effectively 10 Meters ( refer to emails below and previous submissions).

The proposal to:
* resume the swale;
* lay a pipe;
* fill in the swale - some 4+ Meters deep currently; and
* hard cover and reduce the separation from our land to effectively 10 meters ;

is DANGEROUS and NEGLIGENT because
* the swale is a natural water course that the water from our land and surrounding land drains into;
* the swale has filled/flowed to the brim and lapped our land many, many time since 2003;
* unless the piping is the same capacity, for flow, seepage and draining as the swale, then any significant weather is going to cause flooding;
* since our last submission on this subject in 2009, flood event in NSW and Queensland, with subsequent loss of life and property have resulted in various judicial and other formal enquiries which have OPINED very negatively on attempts to pipe natural watercourse. Various recommendations have flowed - no indication here of any reference to such and we note that the landholders were left with the LOSS of LIFE and PROPERTY not the DEVELOPERS or the DECISION MAKERS.

is DETRIMENTAL to the community and quiet enjoyment of our property because

* 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.
* The stunning aspect that the swale and the current rock facing affords the properties, the area in general; as compared to filling in the swale and what will amount to a movement of the level of finished level of our properties;
* 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.
* The introduction of trafficable road will cause adverse amenity impacts on neighbouring residents due to:
o Increase noise impacts
o Increase light spillage
o Increase security concerns
o Decrease landscape and visual buffer to future development
* 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.
* The introduction of a trafficable road is likely to adversely impact on neighbouring resident's property values.
* The proposal conflicts with earlier planning permits and there is not sufficient planning merit or grounds to overcome the conflict.
* The developer has adequate capacity to internalise the trafficable road within the master planning community rather than adjacent to existing residential properties.
* 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.

And we note that the properties in question extend into the swale and past the existing stone retaining wall and any attempt to fill on top of our properties and change the contour of our properties and its surrounds will be denied.
Kind Regards
The Ralston Family

If you receive this email by mistake, please notify us and do not make any use of the email. We do not waive any privilege, confidentiality or copyright associated with it.

________________________________________
From: Prins Ralston [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, 24 June 2009 1:45 PM
To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'
Subject: Casuarina Town Centre and the Swale
Importance: High

Dear Minster and Secretary,

- Re our property - Lot 235 Beech Lane, Casuarina Beach - directly on the Swale

Thank you for considering our previous correspondence re the above. As this issues is in its final phases of consideration it has come to our attention that departmental Environmental Planners are recommending consideration of an easement width of 20 metres with only 2 metre setbacks for all buildings from the boundary.

This recommendation is totally inconsistent with what was advertised and promised to the Casuarina community when we all bought our blocks of land and dwellings on the edge of the easement from the developer, at a significant mark-up due to the promised open space. This is the same developer that previously seeded the existing 36 meter easement in order to get us to purchase these properties. It has always been portrayed and advertised that the current 36 metre wide easement would be a permanent feature of the Casuarina landscape and that it would provide an essential open space corridor and separation between the existing residents of Casuarina and the future town centre.

Considering the town centre development includes the filling in of swale and the possession of appropriately 70% of the current easement, we see no reason why the remaining 30% of easement which directly effects the existing residents of Casuarina and which has NO impact on the layout of the town centre including roads and infrastructure should not be maintained at a minimum of 30 metres with a 10 metre setback to all buildings and structure. This would amount to a significant compromise already by the residents in favour of the developer.

This will ensure the current amenity, privacy and enjoyment which we the residents who live on the edge of the easement currently enjoy, as promised and contracted by the developer, when we purchased our properties is maintained.

We the residents request your consideration of the above;
1. in maintaining the easement width where the existing residents reside is not less than 30 Meters ( a compromise of giving the developer 6 meters);
2. that a building set back from the edge of the easement of 10 Meters is maintained;
noting that in the full context of the entire town centre development the proposed reduction in the easement will not stop the development or cause any significant determent to its feasibility. The only people that are being caused any determent are the existing residents and we seek your assistance to minimise the significant determent that this WILL cause us the invested residents.

With sincere thanks for your consideration

Kind Regards

The Ralston Family


________________________________________
From: Prins Ralston [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, 26 May 2009 3:42 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Casuarina Town Centre and the Swale
Importance: High

Dear Councilor,

- Re our property - Lot 235 Beech Lane, Casuarina Beach - directly on the Swale

We are a family that bought the above property from the developer that is proposing to develop the town centre back in 2003.

Over the subsequent 6 years we have saved and built our property that is dues for completion in next month. A realisation of a long held DREAM for our family.

Please note that we vehemently object to the proposed resumption and thereby reduction of the swale/easement in order to get the Town Centre built. As you will note from the attached letter we have long held this view.

We further note that if this resumption was to proceed that it would cause us great detriment and include the significant reduction of the benefit provided by this easement to ourseleves and our neighbors. The recognized benefits and enjoyment provided by this easement to us includes:

- the visuals impact and physical impact separation from our property to the commercial precinct that the developer is attempting to develop;
- views to the beach and ocean;
- the clear air aspects in all directions;
- access via the easement to the beach and the ovals;
- emergency access to the beach;
- The stunning aspect that the swale and the current rock facing affords the properties, the area in general; as compared to filling in the swale and what will amount to a movement of the level of finished level of our properties;
- The changing of a natural aspect of the landscape that may be to our long term detriment given that what is proposed in terms of the piping will not have the same water movement capacity that the current swale does; and
- We note that the properties in question extend into the swale and past the existing stone retaining wall and any attempt to fill on top of our properties and change the contour of our properties and its surrounds will be denied.

As indicated we originally purchased the property from the same developer that now wants to resume the swale. This same developer produce the following documents that induce us to purchase our lot and encouraged us to build our property the way we have:
- Master plan for Casuarina Beach. (as now reproduced in the Casuarina Town Centre, Urban Design Report for Kings Beach (No 2) Pty Ltd - February 2008, page 2)
- The three town centre concepts that were presented at a series of public displays late in 2006. (as now reproduced in the Casuarina Town Centre, Urban Design Report for Kings Beach (No 2) Pty Ltd - February 2008, pages 11, 12 and 13)
- Marketing documents.
- Website images.
- Price lists;
- Title searches
- survey plans;

These documents dating back to as early as 2002 and as late as April 2008, induced us and others to purchase property that adjoins the swale, on the basis that the swale would exist in perpetuity as indicated in all of this document. As you will note, the swale on all of the documents, including most importantly the detailed survey and lot plans, indicate the width and length of the swale. The inducement was based on there being a clear easement area of at least 36 metres between the lot and any commercial or other development. This area would clearly give us and sustain our views, privacy and other amenities, including access via this easement. It is clear also from the various marketing and pricing schedules that the lots that adjoin the swale were being marketed and subsequently sold at a significantly greater price than lots that did not adjoin the swale. It is clear that through the marketing materials, as well as the assertions made to us by the selling agents, and supported by the price differential, that the extent and amenities of the swale added significantly to the benefit purported to be delivered by this easement.

Not only has all of the documentation and the developers selling agents induced us to purchase the property, it has also induced us to construct our properties on the basis that the swale/easement with afford us all of the benefits indicated above.

It seems unfair and unjust that the Developer can profit from the initial sale and now resume that land that induced the sale, renege, and profit once again.


As a consequence of the above we are fully supportive of the conclusions and the recommendations made to you by your Council officers as follows:

"5. Conclusion
Whilst the proponent has made a genuine attempt to mitigate the adverse impacts of the
proposed elimination of the Easement/Right of Carriageway Benefiting Council over lot 223
DP104849, they have not provided sufficient evidence to justify:
* The major departure from the L&E Court Kings Beach Development Plan
* The loss of level of service and amenity to residents provided by the easement/right
of way and assets contained therein. Particularly given that residents who purchased
in this area would have had a reasonable expectation that the open space contained
in the easement/right of way would remain, as it is specifically designated in the L&E
Court Kings Beach Development Plan and the proponents own Kings Beach

6. Recommendation
That
(a) Council withhold owners consent relating to lots 10 and 13 DP1014470, the
easement/right of carriageway benefiting Council over lot 223 DP104849 and Dianella Drive.
(b) Council advise the proponents and the Department that it supports the concept of the
Town Centre proposal and would more favourably consider a request for owners consent if a
revised concept plan was submitted that conformed with the intent of the Kings Beach
Development Plan contained in the Land & Environment Court consent of 16 December 1998
for DA s96/135."

We plead with you to endorse these considered conclusions and recommendations of your Council Officers.

Kind Regards

The Ralston Family

Please see attached letter

Please see attached PDF File. We are private citizens with no financial or other interests in the proposed development, nor do we have any connection with property immediately adjacent to the site in question. We are residents of the suburb.

See attached

see attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See Attached

See attached

see attached letter

Please see attached