Mod 5 - Santai Resort , Casuarina Beach

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.

I have attached my submission as a PDF file: Unit Owner Submission on DA
187-8-2004 MOD 5 Application 08022019.pdf

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.

Refer attached.

We are submitting this objection on behalf of our client, The Oaks Group.
Please see attached correspondence.

Refer to attachment.

Please see attached.