August 19, 2003.

Dear Councillor,

Due to the importance of the Australand development to the residents of Burleigh Heads, we are surprised that only a few of you have answered our previous faxes/emails on the issue. Thank you to those Councillors that did reply and offer support.

As you may be aware, a rally was held at 1pm on Sunday, August 17 opposite the Burleigh Heads Hotel, the site of the proposed Australand development.

All the flyers and advertising specifically stressed that the rally called for people for and against the development. If people who were for it didn’t feel strongly enough for the development to attend the rally, then they, as for those who were against the development but didn’t feel strongly enough about it to attend the rally, could not be counted in the ratio of for and against. It is totally illogical to state that those who oppose the development should attend the rally but those who are for the development need not attend the rally. It is also illogical to say 300 oppose the development whilst the remainder of the population support it.

More speakers for the development were invited than those against. A principle reason for the rally was to sincerely and honestly get information on why the Australand development would be good for Burleigh.

As well as Australand, Council officers, the CEO, Cr Drake, Mrs. Smith, the Chamber of Commerce and a local Real Estate Agent, Adam Young from Black and Young, had all been invited to the rally but had declined the invitation for various reasons and none had sent a representative.

According to attendees and the GCB reporter, around 300 residents turned up in the rain. When a vote was taken, 2 people were in favour of the development and the remainder were against it. According to these figures, the ratio of residents against the development to those for, is approximately 300:2. These figures can be added to the previous survey that was taken which showed 98% of respondents were against the development.

Mr Peter Dransfield, GM, Apartments, Australand, was asked in a telephone conversation about the development. He said that Australand had a legal right to build the developments. He was given a report on the rally, with the associated figures and the results of the previous poll. He wasn’t particularly interested. When told that the overwhelming majority of the residents were against the development, he was asked about Australand’s moral right to build a development which most residents believed would destroy the character of their community and was being done solely for profits at the expense of the community, he repeated that the company had a legal right to do it.

Given the results of the previous survey and the results of the rally, you are now aware that you are voting for what the residents believe is the destruction of their community for the profits of a company which has many overseas directors who don’t care about the opinions of the residents nor the future of the Burleigh Heads community. As a Councillor, you can no longer claim that the “silent majority” is in favour of the development nor do the residents believe that it is good for Burleigh Heads. Consequently, we ask the following from those who intend to vote for the development:

1. Knowing that the huge majority of the ratepayers of Division 12 (except for the Chamber of Commerce) are against the development, why are you still going to vote for this development? Is it because you intend to ignore the demonstrated wishes of the affected community, you believe you know “better” than the local community or you are afraid of potential legal action from Australand?
2. Knowing that the vast majority of ratepayers in Division 12 believe that this development will destroy the character of Burleigh Heads, please advise the residents why you agree with both the developer and the Council officers that the Desired Environmental Outcomes for Burleigh Heads will be met with this development remembering that you are responsible for this decision, not the non-elected Council officers.
3. Why is no consideration being given for gradation? The residents did not accept the fact that a seven storey building and a fifteen storey building on the same site constitutes “gradation”. If any judge decides that it is, such a decision may well be appealed.

If you would like a copy of the conversation with Mr Dransfield from Australand or the results of a list of the resolutions put to the rally attendees, please let us know.

Yours sincerely,

Irene Wareing, President, FOBA.