Mod 5 - Santai Resort , Casuarina Beach

The property should be broadened to include the ability to rent for
holiday or permanent rentals. The facilities are sufficient and
there's excess parking outside so I can't see any objections to
allowing the apartment owners to choose who they let their properties
too.

The resort should be available to both holiday short term guests and
longer term guests.

We object to the proposed change for permanent residential use of 22
units in the Santai Resort, with justification as follows:
1. We purchased our unit on the understanding that Santai Resort is
for holiday letting only;
2. Permanent residential will compromise the exclusivity of this
resort; as it is designed to be a high class, high end market.
3. Permanent residential will result in the increases to on-going
management fees and care taking fees to compensate for the loss Resort
Management income due to reduction in the number of units available
for letting.
4. Permanent residency will result in more disputes with Owners
Corporation and the Resort Management. The Resort Management will be
expected to police and provide care-taking service to the Permanent
residential units.
5. There is insufficient storage and parking facilities in the complex
to support permanent residency.
6 The change in status will compromise the holiday letting
opportunities and reduce the value of all units.
7. Due to the location of the Resort, we must be sensitive to the
local residents privacy and well being. (for instance, additional
street parking by permanent residences, etc).

As an owner of a unit at Santai resort that is letted out through the
managing company I believe it is in the best interest of the resort as
a whole that there are no long term tenants in the building. There
have been prior examples of this occuring and issues have risen from
this. The nature of permanent tenants tends to create issues with
parking and storage. Most of the complex has not been set up with
permanent tenants in mind. Large numbers of them are studios. I also
beleive that for the resort to opperate effectively as a resort short
term stays are essential. I can only see issues with long term
accomadation.

I wish comment that I believe that the application should either apply to
all units or none. Just selecting 22 units out of 114 will create a
division between those that are permanently let and those that are
holiday let dissadvantaging one or the other therefore I believe it
should be all or none.

I support permanent residential accommodation.

We agree with the Proposed Modifacation put forwardto change 22 units at
Oaks Santai Resort.
As owners of th e above apartment we feel the owners should have the
right to rent or live in if needed. We were in the rental pool for 7
months and some nights we received after all expenses less than $30
per night.
The proposed modification would allow owners to choose the best way to
handle their investment.

I feel strongly that the modification to DA 187-8-2004 should be made.
Since the original development proposal was made there has been a
trial change in the nature of the environs around the resort. The
building of the shopping centres and the major housing developments
that have gone ahead in recent years has meant that the afea now looks
like, and has many of the characteristics of a residential area. In an
area where there is an increasing population and a genuine shortage of
affordable rental accommodation I feel that it is in the interests of
the wider community to pass this application.
I think that the reality is that many of the units in the resort are
already rented for periods beyond the three month limit, and I suggest
that this represents a commercial and community reality. This proposal
will bring the original DA up to speed with a changed and changing
community and locale,

I own a unit at Santai and bought into the complex at the start of the
development because it was a Tourist Resort which would be managed by
a Hotel Operator.
The success of the Hotel / Resort requires the units to be in the
letting pool so that the resort can be run as one resort.
If the proposal to permit a select group of 22 units be let as both
short term and permanent accommodation will undermine the whole
function of the Resort and will have a direct detrimental and
financial impact on our investment.
Santai has been developed and advertised to the investors as a Resort
and should be managed as it was approved in the original development.
We strongly urge The NSW Government to REJECT the proposal.
Thanks

We are opposed to the application to modify development consent of use to
22 units.
We feel it is not in the best interest of the resort as a whole or the
owners of the units to allow long term renting of the units which will
change it from a Resort to a set of flats.
We believe it will impact on the Return on Investment we have bought
into.
We believe there is insufficient parking for guests who may want to
visit owner occupied units.
This application has previously been declined by the Unit owners for
the above reasons.

We purchased our investment unit as a short term stay and we would like
for it to stay as what we purchased.

When we purchased this unit we understood it was a short term stay
holiday unit and we have no intention of wanting this to change

We do not want any changes to the residential statues of Santai
Resort, 9-13 Dianella Drive, Casuarina

1. There is inadequate parking fo owner occupiers & their visitors
2. The Building is a Resort,not a block of flats.Apartment values will
fall if Application is granted.

1. There is inadequate parking fo owner occupiers & their visitors
2. The Building is a Resort,not a block of flats.Apartment values will
fall if Application is granted.

We do not believe the complex was built to house permanent residents, It
was built as a resort complex to house holiday makers. We therefore
strongly object to the submission.

I am the Owner of a unit in Santai Resort.

I am opposed to this Modification Application by Casuarina Corporation
for the following reasons:

The building was not designed for permanent residency:

* A similar attempt was made in 2005 to remove the restrictions on
occupancy (Application to Modify Development Consent - MOD 115-7-2005
modifying DA 187-8-2004) which was refused on the grounds that:

1. The proposed to be modified development is not substantially the
same development as originally approved;
2. The modifications proposed introduce an unacceptable level of
uncertainty as to the future use; and
3. The proposed to be modified development is not in the public
interest.

I do not believe that the Santai resort is suitable for long term
accommodation. There has been trouble in the past even just with Air
BnB being allowed in the complex where residents believe they have
rights to use the resort facilities, and the resort having to spend
extra ,money securing areas like the reception area that would not
normally have to be secured. Large furnishings have also gone missing
because access to outside people were allowed once the restaurant
approval was changed as well, rather than having a secure complex with
only guests allowed.

Allowing long-term residential accommodation will negatively impact
the operation of the complex as a resort. Having permanent residents
is incompatible with the business of running a tourist resort which
was the original purpose of the development and we as investors bought
into.

Another example is the lack of carparking facilities for long term
accommodation. There has already been trouble with illegal length
stays were the occupier parked several vehicles in the parking area
designated for guests.

There has been issues in the past where resort security have no
authority over "non-resort" guests, and nuisance to paying guests has
occurred, with no recourse being able to be taken by the resort.
Allowing long term will negatively affect future earnings if any
undesirable behaviour of non resort occupiers is encountered and then
legitimate guests publish their experiences via social media.

In addition, one occupier even changed the fire door and access to his
apartment, which clearly was in breach of regulations. If long term
residents are allowed, clearly changes like this are more likely to
occur.

Finally, if the approval is granted, this gives an unfair advantage to
Casuarina Corp if they were to sell their apartments, as currently
bank lending on short term accommodation is restricted. If the
approval is given to casuarina corp then it should be extended to ALL
owners of the apartments in the complex without discrimination. This
would however, negatively impact the facility as a tourism facility.

I have owned my apartment for over 10 years and we have all faced the
uncertainty and variation of earnings, however the most recent resort
managers have made huge inroads into occupancy rates and returns have
improved markedly. Variation of earnings is NOT a valid excuse for
changing the nature of occupancy. Like us, they knowingly bought into
a Resort and thus variations are to be expected.

I don't necessarily object to the 22 units becoming permanent
residential, however I do have concerns around the car parking
situation this will create. My understanding is that there are
currently 118 car parks to cater for the 115 units, the on-site
restaurant and the staff.

Our neighbourhood already suffers enormously with parking issues due
to Santai Resort, primarily as a result of the restaurant Spice Den
trading to the public (outside of the resort) without a license to do
so. As it was never given such a license, car parking was not
sufficiently catered for and without anywhere else to park, patrons of
the restaurant park along Dianella Drive and Harpullia Court.

Dianella Drive has essentially become a one-way street as cars are
parked all along both sides. Local residents regularly have to reverse
back out of the street to let others pass. Cars park illegally on
corners, making it impossible to see out when exiting the street.
Neighbourhood children have had many near-misses with cars, because
they cannot see out past the row of cars when crossing the street. It
would be devastating if it takes a child being hit by a car before
this issue is addressed - especially if the restaurant is trading
illegally.

I would think that residential buildings would be required to provide
more than 1 car space per unit, plus adequate parking for an onsite
restaurant and staff. Santai Resort already doesn't provide this and I
am concerned what adding potentially 44 more cars (2xcars per unit) to
the mix would do to our neighbourhood. Our streets would literally be
a car park - and they are too small to cope with that.

I would be open to the proposed changes if there was an adequate
traffic management and car parking management plan in place that will
alleviate the congestion along Dianella Drive and Harpullia Court.

See Attachment 1

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am the owner- along with my wife - of lot 82 at SP77971 Santai
Resort and I wish to lodge an objection to DA 187 - 8 - 2004 MOD 5 on
the following grounds:

1. On Wednesday the seventh of November 2018 a motion - Motion 9 in
the attached minutes - was passed as follows:

The Owners Corporation RESOLVED to approve the granting of landowner's
consent to Casuarina Corporation Pty Ltd in the form tabled at the
meeting (and to any other owner that requests such a consent from time
to time) to lodge a development application for the modification of
the Concept Plan (DA187-8-2004) to permit the use of tourist
accommodation units owned by Casuarina Corporation Pty Ltd (or any
other owner) as permanent residential units as well as tourist
accommodation and authorised the Strata Manager to affix the seal to
the Landowners Consent form tabled and to attest to the affixing of
the seal immediately following the meeting and to return the original
to Grace Irvin for Casuarina Corporation Pty Ltd. The Owners
Corporation further RESOLVED that any two committee members be
authorised to sign the landowners consent form, in the event that the
strata manager failed to do so.

This motion was passed principally on votes from Casuarina Corporation
and Owner Occupiers (in breach of the DA) and Owners not in the
letting pool. As can be seen from the wording of the passing of this
motion any owner may apply for their units to be for permanent
residence not just the 22 Casuarina Corporation units. If the
application were to be granted this would open the flood gates so to
speak and allow any owner to do the same.


2. Car Parking. The car park spaces on grade referred to in the
proponents application are for exclusive use of the Restaurant and
since the restaurant is now open to the public, car parks in the
surrounding streets are at a premium. There is no provision for
visitors carparking on the premises

3. In 2005 an application was made to the Department of Planning -
MOD115 - 7 - 2005 Modifying DA 187 - 8 - 2004 of Santai. This
application was refused as outlined in the attached file.

4. When we, along with many other owners, purchased our units in the
Resort we were confident in the fact that it was a tourist resort for
the exclusive use by tourists. Some years ago - due to abysimal
management whereby the occupancy rates fell to below 10%, many owners
had to put in permanent tennants, all be it illegally, just to be able
to pay the levies. Subsiquently, with good management, occupancy rates
have risen to around 70% and noone wants to go back to the time when
permanent tennants were interfering with the relaxation of guests. The
opening of the Restaurant to the public has caused enough problems in
this regard.


Kind Regards,

W A (Andy) Kilpatrick

I object strongly to the application.

We wish to object to this proposal as the original intent for it to be a
holiday resort and we believe it should remain as such. We further
support and uphold the previous refusal (MOD 115-7-2005, see attached)
that attempted to modify the DA back in 2005. It is our opinion that
should this modification be passed it will significantly decrease the
capital value of our, and other's, investments and have a significant
affect on the income stream our investment is currently returning. We
strongly object to this modification of the DA.