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 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,

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.

See Attachment 1

I support permanent residential accommodation.

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.

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.