Kings Forest Stage 1 (Mod 4)

Developer should keep all promises and I object to any changes to plans.
The developer needs to plant primary food trees and have a 100 metre wildlife corridor and have traffic calming devices.

Developer should keep all promise and object to any changes to the plan.
Developer needs to plant primary food trees and have a 100 metre wildlife corridor and have traffic calming devices in place

I object to any changes to the plan

Developer should keep all promises and I object to any changes to plans
This area is UNIQUE & we DEPEND on TOURISTS
Residents ENJOY ALL the NATIVE WILDLIFE
WE do not want to become another BERMUDA Road with its terrible LOSSES
WE ADVERTISE our Beautiful MT Warning/ Culdera NATURAL HERITAGE AREA - the FUTURE tourist potential IS HERE!!
KOALAS, Butterflies, (the Richmond Birdwing is in this area
Birds - kingfisher, scarlett honey eaters & many larger species.
We have NO koala hospital, NO Botanical Gardens NO LEISURE
AREAS why no follow Port MacQuaries ECO PLAN - People wish to RETURN
THEDeveloper needs to plant FOOD trees and have a 100 metre WILDLIFE CORRIDOR &traffic calming devices
ONCE IT IS GONE IT HAS GONE FOREVER!!!!!???

Developer should keep all promises and I object to any changes to plans
This area is UNIQUE & we DEPEND on TOURISTS
Residents ENJOY ALL the NATIVE WILDLIFE
WE do not want to become another BERMUDA Road with its terrible LOSSES
WE ADVERTISE our Beautiful MT Warning/ Culdera NATURAL HERITAGE AREA - the FUTURE tourist potential IS HERE!!
KOALAS, Butterflies, (the Richmond Birdwing is in this area
Birds - kingfisher, scarlett honey eaters & many larger species.
We have NO koala hospital, NO Botanical Gardens NO LEISURE
AREAS why no follow Port MacQuaries ECO PLAN - People wish to RETURN
THEDeveloper needs to plant FOOD trees and have a 100 metre WILDLIFE CORRIDOR &traffic calming devices
ONCE IT IS GONE IT HAS GONE FOREVER!!!!!???

Developer should keep all promises and I object to any changes to plan.

Developer needs to plant primary food trees and have a 100 metre wildlife corridor, and have traffic calming devices.

Unacceptable violation of the KPOM.

I feel greatly concerned for the welfare of the koalas in Kings Forest and object to any changes to the original plan. The developer should be mandated to keep all promises including planting primary food trees for the koalas with a sustainable 100 metre wildlife corridor. To ensure the safety of the koalas traffic calming devices need to be installed. Koalas are iconic and a previous species within our environment. They matter. Gayle Russell

To Whom This May Concern,

I implore the NSW Department of Environment & Planning to reject the above revision of the Koala Plan Of Management, on the following grounds.

1. The proponent already displays scant regard for the Tweed's dwindling koala population by proposing to develop the Kings Forest estate which is in an acknowledged koala corridor. To now ask that he not be required to provide the compensatory planting of koala food trees, as originally agreed to, is very distressing.

2. Tweed's koalas need as much protection as possible from dogs & cats. The proponent refused outright to ban dogs & cats from the Kings Forest estate, & now wants to reduce fencing originally agreed to. I also find this very upsetting.

3. The proponent also want to revise back traffic calming measures & provision for native animals to safely cross roads.

Our Tweed koalas need as much support & protection as we can give them. The proposed revisions of the KPOM give them NO support or protection.

Please PLEASE reject the revisions for the sake of our koalas.

Thank you,
Judy Wagner
(Member of Cabarita Beach/Bogangar Residents Assoc, & Dune care, & volunteer at Friends of Cudgen Nature Reserve)

I hereby object to the amendments to this matter on the following grounds:

1. the original approval was clearly based on the environmental assessment with clear guidelines for Kolas and there habitat
2. the is insufficient reason to change the original requirements

I am very concerned at any watering down of the original conditions pertaining to the approval of the Kings Forest development.
We already have a declining Koala population on the coast and many of us are working hard to plant Koala habitat trees and try and improve the chances of Koalas surviving in this area. The developers have approval for a development which many local people are against. It is not justice to allow them any further watering down of the conditions.Please listen to the people who care and not just the developers.

Tim Greenish

As Tweed Shire council has a strict policy's around environment protection, a Green party Mayor as well as a local EPA presence they should be inline with supporting the original Koala Plan of Management . It would seem unfair that the original Koala Plan of Management (KPOM) be changed to a watered down version or even changed at all, seeing as this was an accepted agreement for those campaigning for this KPOM. Unfair for the Koalas which is what the majority of the community are standing up for and the Tweed council is of course a representative of its community.

As frequent visitors to the area and considering the problems, challenges and inadequacies with Koala Habitats in this region already, it is appalling that any changes will be facilitated by governments, that will effect further potential detrimental changes to such, are even being considered. Nature and its habitats are suffering enough as it is in Australia, without further government sanctioned failure of responsibility, in regard to it.

I wish to strongly object to the proposed modifications to the Kings Forest development. This development is right in the middle of the most populated koala habitat area on the Tweed coast. All original approval from State and Federal governments needs to stay in place as this was put in place for the survival of our already declining koala population - the proposed modifications reverse these conditions.
All the environmental management plans are crucial prior to the heavy duty work taking place in the environmental protection zone - what is wrong with this developer who does not want to put in place such much needed environmental plans.
The continued planting of much needed koala trees is crucial for survival and yet this developer does not want to plant the primary koala food trees required. There is no explanation to the not planting the 27 hectares of koala habitat in Cudgen Nature reserve which is a very important measure to counter lost habitat - this was compensatory koala habitat planting that should not be avoided.
The modification show no fencing and offers no protection from roads. Also at the Southern end of the East West corridor there is a reduction from 100m (required amount)to 50m width and does not link to the Environ Rd corridor - this will be totally ineffective to protect the koalas whilst moving.

Dear Sir / Madam

Twenty years ago the koala population of the Tweed Coast was considered the second most important coastal koala colony in NSW.

Over the past two decades, steady urban expansion has fragmented this habitat and put increasing pressure on the koala population of the Tweed shire.

For this reason, the KPoM for Kings Forest has been specific and meticulous in its requirements for ensuring the best outcome for koalas on the site. In particular, the planting of koala food trees, the maintenance of wildlife corridors, koala underpasses under roads and protection of primary habitat are all crucial measures for protection of these animals.

We are already all too familiar with the impact that dogs, traffic and the encroaching suburban environment have on koalas. Vulnerable and stressed as these populations are, it is vital that we maintain the highest possible level of protection for the numbers that remain.

1. The proponent asks that preliminary works using heavy earth moving equipment be permitted before environmental management plans are in place. This is unacceptable.
2. The proponent wishes to delay protection of environmental offset areas while these works are carried out.
3. The proponent's revised KPoM offers a hugely compromised East-West wildlife corridor, reduced from 'generally 100 metres wide' to a maximum of 50 metres, and not continuous. This should not be permitted.
4. The proponent wishes to remove the required 27 ha of offsite planting and revise the area of compensatory koala habitat.
5. Tweed Shire Council was not consulted on the drawing up of the revised KPoM, as was promised.
6. The proponent wants to reduce the required fencing of roads, change fauna underpasses and instead use untested 'cattle grids'.

Please ensure that the highest environmental standards are maintained in this project. TSC officers have worked tirelessly to come up with conditions that offer the best possible outcomes for the coastal koala populations of the shire. The Kings Forest project, in whatever form it takes, will have a huge impact on the northern part of the Shire. It is crucial that strict standards are in place to give our vulnerable koala population the best chance to survive the massive impact in store.

It is disappointing that Leda is seeking modification to existing approvals with respect to koala protection.
The experts are saying that koalas are endangered. Just when are we going to really begin protecting koala habitat which once covered the whole of east coast Australia.
This protected habitat is now confined to National Parks. Any other area is not protected and seemingly can be destroyed by developers for a profit motive.
Please say enough is enough and force the developer to honor their original undertakings.
Thank you for your time

As a home owner in Kingscliff I am concerned that this developer is retracting the promises made to the community and published in the local paper to protect our precious endangered koala habitat in the Kings Forest area. The community are concerned that an overseas based developer be able to further endanger one of our iconic Australian animals for profit making even when they promised differently when getting approval for this project.

I would like to submit an objection to this amendment. It removes some of the key environmental protections which were central to the original submission, and were widely announced and advertised to the community. There has been no such wide-scale advertisement of the proposed changes. Considering the environmental protections which are now being modified were a key part of the original advertising to the community, the amendments should be rejected until a period of extensive community engagement has been provided.

This is a developer which has their way into our beautiful region of the Northern Rivers.
Unfortunately, due to progress, we have to remind this company to use their and the original agreement was.
Knowing that their wouldn't about the environment.
I do ask that they take notice of our communities request, grow a and consider the future of the Koala population in our area.

Developer should keep all promises.
I object to any changes to plan
Developer needs to plant primary food trees/have a 100m wildlife corridor / have traffic calming devices.