August 12, 2003.

Dear Councillor,

As you may be aware, residents, ratepayers and visitors are concerned with the proposed Australand development on the corner of The Esplanade and the Gold Coast Highway. A number of objections have been submitted to Council.

A local poll was taken and 98% of respondents said that they didn’t want the development due to a number of reasons (infrastructure, traffic, parking, shadow over the park, shadow over the school and housing) and because it will change the ambience of Burleigh forever. Two seven storey buildings were strongly favoured by the residents for the development.

The Friends of Burleigh Association have correspondence from Council that states:

• That it is Council’s policy to “encourage high rise development in areas adjacent to coastal beaches….”
• “Also it is realised that many landowners (in this case developer Australand) would have made commercial decisions/investments on the basis of expectations of the development potential on their land holdings.”
• Objections from ratepayers within the relevant division are ignored because they are not land owners in the area. Council won’t define “landowner in the area”.

Consequently, it is seen that developers’ rights and profits hold more credence with Council over ratepayers’ objections and concerns about loss of amenity and quality of life in their Division. Cr. Drake acknowledged the first point at our public meeting on the 30^th July, 2003. Ratepayers are under the belief that Council’s principle concern is to represent the residents and ratepayers of this City. According to the Council’s correspondence, this is not the case.

Council has been asked in writing who put these policies in place and which Councillors voted for them. It won’t answer. Councillors say that Council officers decide the policies and Council Officers say that Councillors decide the policies.

In the Local Government Act it states that a Councillor’s role is to make Council policy and meet the overall public interest, (Sect. 229.1 of the Act), whilst Council Officers implement that policy.

The overwhelming sentiment in Burleigh Heads is to stop the high rise. If Council disagrees with this, why not take a poll in the Division to determine the residents’ views? The residents have made it blatantly clear that they do not want another Surfers Paradise in Burleigh Heads, yet Council’s correspondence indicates that the opposite is to happen due to Council’s policy of realising the expectations of “commercial decisions/investments” of “development potential”. Regarding the Council’s policy to encourage high rise; ratepayers would like to know when this decision was made, the reasons it was made and by whom. We are still waiting for these answers from Council.

We wish to know the following from you:

1. Did you vote in favour of Council’s policy of encouraging high rise on the foreshore?

2. Do you agree that Council should base its decisions on the expectations of “commercial decisions/investments” of “development potential”? This is the current situation with Australand.

3. Do you agree that ratepayers in the division are not land owners in the area unless they live within an undefined (by Council) proximity to the development? This policy strongly effects ratepayers rights within divisions and indicates that many ratepayers objections are not given due consideration.

4. Will you be voting in favour of the Australand development on the corner of The Esplanade and the Gold Coast Highway?

We don’t believe that such information need be applied for through another FOI. We simply seek your replies on the above questions which will be sent to our members and posted on FOBA’s website. As usual, it is not FOBA’s intention to make comments on your answers but to simply pass them on so that ratepayers can make their own decisions.

Yours sincerely,

Irene Wareing, President, FOBA.