Sorry Sue but is not just about the developer making a buck. It is also about making a new community - just like old Catho (that she needs to be reminded was once upon a time not there either). Unfortunately Newcastle is both growing at a rapid pace and is also land locked in nearly every direction except that of Catho and people need to live somewhere. Just beacause sue manged to buy a shack before the property boom or has a crap load of money to afford a house there shouldn' mean i'm not given the same opportunity.

I also haven't heard Sue complain about the piles of coal that are clearly visible from the beach (that was ther alot longer than when I'm guessing Sue was there). So what is so different between the coal and houses. Yes there are environmental impacts that need (and I'm sure have been) addressed. Unfortunately it is just too close to Newcastle, Gosford and Sydney which makes it different to the likes of Seals Rocks (god bless Treach).

I surf (and have sufed Catho for 25 years), I work hard and pay taxes so I should be able to buy a property on the coast like many of the generations that have done before me.

Or does Sue think we should all go and build a new house in a retired salt ridden paddock.

Sorry Sue but it sounds more like you just want it all for yourself. Communities start from somewhere and Catho would surely end up being just as good - if not better - than what it is now.

On the wings of a six pack will we ever learn?

wow i used to go to catho n moonie in the eighties, can't beleive it hasn't changed. Well this is something we should all support to stop the developers, enough is enough.

I fully understand the comments of surfnbull. Whilst it is important to protect some areas from development(Australia is well served by its National Parks and other reseves),there is often a strong element of self-interest in the attempts of those seeking to preserve an already settled area in which they have a vested interest:'Come and visit, but your not welcome to stay the night. It's ours!'

I am not familiar with Catherine Hill Bay, and I can understand the resistance coming from those who have been privileged to enjoy its unique features throughout the years; but population is growing, and we should all be given the opportunity to participate in the Great Australian dream'.Communities have to start somewhere. I am sure many of the first residents of the Gold Coast, or any other developed portion of Australia's coastline resited inevitable growth, but there are now communities that provide wonderful opportunities for more than the select few.
With proper planning, and equipped with knowledge derived from past mistakes, it's tinme to move forward, not shut the gate on your fellow citizens.

There are a couple of major problems here. Firstly, many local governments do not want further development in their area as their view is that it compromises the values that make their region and community special – this is the case here, and this is why the Part 3A was established. The fundamental problem is that in Australia we have an aging baby-boomer population, and if the economists are correct, we need a hell of a lot more people to breed or to come to our country so we can all pay taxes and support these guys: “The Big Australia Strategy”. I personally don’t like the idea of this at all, but apparently it is absolutely necessary. So where do we put these people – an undeveloped coastal community close to an urban centre seems like a pretty good place to me.

Then come the faceless developers who appear as monsters to the community (this is often an accurate description), who generally have no community interest and are only after maximum profit margins.

It seems to me that the only answer is “responsible development” – development that takes into account environmental and social buffers, community lifestyle, and still manages to turn a profit. Who is responsible for this type of development? It is the regulators – the state and local government agencies who need to impose the restrictions on the developers (as the developers will inevitably get away with what they can). To me, the underlying problems involve apathy or corruption within these agencies, and individuals that either allow or facilitate this kind of unsustainable or inappropriate development. The community needs to target the regulators, not the developers, as the regulators are the guys with the powers to change things – and after all they are supposed to represent us. To do this, the community needs to understand policy and legislation (and strive to make changes to these when they are inadequate), to expose, name and shame corruption and dodgy political lobbying, to be prepared to go home from the picket fences and do some serious homework, and to lobby for sustainable development, rather than no development at all.

Good luck with the fight, but I don't see a win in the long run though. Gouvernments are good at fucking up the coastline. I used to love surfing there a long time ago.

It's a bit naive to think that this development will somehow open up beachside residences for the battler.

From an environmental perspective it is a no brainer. The public (you and I) will pay multi-millions to get basic services in there to support the sort of numbers they are looking at. It is subject to subsidence, the development covers areas that will flood (yep, we're still lining up to make those mistakes) and the likelihood of coastal problems from erosion are huge. And let's not even get into sea level change.

This is just another classic "developer take the profit, socialise the losses story.

An unnecessary incursion on the coast. Such a weird place Catho. Got a vibe like no other place I know, but I've never been to Adelaide.

On ever been there once to check it out on the way through, but that that was a while ago. Probably should put a heritage thing on it to snooker everyone, be a shame to see it developed, but also it would be a shame to see yuppies buy it up and rip down the cottages to put up mansions. There aren't many of these little seaside towns left, it's nice to drive back in time occasionally.

We'd all like to live on the coast, wouldn't we? Unfortunately Mr Surfnbull simplifies the requisites for doing so. No Mr Surfnbull, just 'working hard and paying taxes' doesn't reserve you a piece of coastal real estate. I mean, we all do that don't we? And if we all lived on the coastal interface what an ugly place that would be.

Mistakes have been made in those other areas you cite, Sydney, Newcastle and Gosford, and it's only community pressure that will avoid them being repeated at Catho.

I've been watching this development from a respectable distance (1200 kms!) but I grew up at Blacksmiths and know the area well. Unlike Mr Surfnbull I don't see it as an either/or argument. There is a middle way and it involves community involvement, compromise and close scrutiny of the developer.

Said,precious moments,precious few.

When the dollar's more than me and you

We love the vibe at catho so much we got married on the beach there.

I think the majority of residents that own houses in Catho are not the original community. More wealthy out of towners that snapped these small miners cribs in hope of a secluded holiday house and solid investment. I would love to know how many of the local surfers in the boardriding club own houses in town??? How long has Sue lived in the town. Is she or many of her supporters part of the original people that lived in Catho. The original miners sold their cribs for profit and it seems like it happening again.

They are more concerned that the value of their investment will be reduced once more houses are built. I love catho but I think the development is ominous. Whether it is good or bad is the big question. I wish the world stayed like it was in the 70's but it is a little naive to think this way in 2011. Look up and down our coast. Sandon Point, Lennox Head to name just a couple.

check out the ugly murrays beach development accross the highway. not really a beach, and tiny houses built on top of each other like lego land. i would have thought people moving to a country town would want some space from thier neighbours.
its pretty ugly really.

Some facts:

1) Developers pay millions in infrastructure expenses even though they pay for the majority of the infrastructure themselves. Councils then make a killing from the rates they get. So don't think that society takes the bill for these developments because thats a fallacy.
2) Coastal councils are generally anti development, not because of the financial equation but because of political persuasion. You have one developer vs a hoard of protesters, its easy to see where the council will tend to side with, popular opinion.
3) It is not true that new development hinders the price of property growth. When new people move into the town they spend money, the economy improves, more jobs are created and towns flourish. This isn't even included all the construction jobs created because of the development itself.
4) Section 3A is necessary because our councils do not always get it right, it is that simple really. For example, in Brisbane Campbell Newman won't let developers build towers where the car parking is above ground. He wants it below ground, so developers have to spend millions more in building car parks under ground. The expenses are past on to the buyers (because developers can't take it off their profit line otherwise there is no point in taking the risk to finance such a big job) and people are worse off, particularly when it floods. So councils sometimes impose silly regulations which the government needs to keep in check. Section 3A is also needed so the State Government can dissaprove projects the councils approve.
5) The environmental sustainability argument is strong but we all need to remember that if you go build a development back from the water on say a hill instead of a headland the effects are going to be generally the same (unless they are building on Sand Dunes etc). I don't think you should wipe out a hill with housing or a headland, it should be in spread out pockets with plenty of green space.

I believe the problem in this case is that the proposed scheme is probably too high density and doesn't feature enough green space and sustainability features. If he paid $4.5m he will probably make his money back on it if there is about 60 + houses or say 90+ units. If he is pushing for more than this you know there is breathing room to scale back whats been done.

Sorry for the extended commentary, I work in the industry and its a delicate balance.

Having lived on the Sunny coast for 25 years, I have seen all the "pro arguments" for rampant development. A beautiful collection of hamlets have been turned into generic urban sprawl wastelends, a golden arch and a coffee club on every corner.
The remaining east coast towns who can keep their "originality" will be the ones who prosper in the future.

The wrath of an ignorant family dynasty. The Rose clan reads just like the Holt and Breen families whom should also be publicly shamed for the exploitation of the birthplace of modern Australia, Kurnell Sydney. It's simply greed, our modern social cancer. How big does ones footprint and bank balance need to be until satisfied...

Hate to say it...but Zane is right. It's a delcate balance but one that will be made eventually. Sooner, later, its a little matter.
I lived and surfed in Barwon Heads once. Stil surf it and play cricket there but would no longer wish to live there or could afford to live there. Thats the balance I had to live. I survived

Hate to say it...but Zane is right. It's a delcate balance but one that will be made eventually. Sooner, later, its a little matter.
I lived and surfed in Barwon Heads once. Stil surf it and play cricket there but would no longer wish to live there or could afford to live there. Thats the balance I had to live. I survived

Sure it's a delicate balance, but there is nothing delicate about these developments. Environments are routinely trashed. Sure, councils don't get it right all the time, but the state government gets it wrong much more regularly.

Zane, read your own script. Point 1 directly contradicts point 3. Developers don't pay for infrastructure, the buyer does. The developer profits from an investment in infrastructure.

Respectfully, developers don't go into these things to lose money. You may be in the industry, but you aren't across the business. If you believe the spiel from developer that 'they' pay for the infrastructure, you really don't know how it works.

almost half of the catherine hill bay "residents" do not live there full time. In the community survey results of which the survey was conducted by Sue Whyte show that only 75 (67%) out of the 112 houses are occupied full time. Many are owned by sydney residents as weekenders or for renting. I think that many of the protesters are simply business men protecting their valuable assets. The survey also shows that 60% of the residents have only lived there for under 20 years.

I don't think you can look to the gold coast or sunshine coasts over developments as any model to follow in this situation, unless you want to stuff it up that is. imo there is enough coastal areas developed already and some areas should be preserved for future generations to enjoy and access not just the fortunate few.
A pox on all dodgy developers and the officials that let them get away with it

Don't fight it any longer dawg. Cashed up, ocean front, boutique pie shop, 'perfect' waves, 'sustainabliity', 457 visas, the rave chained to the oven... 'Savouries by David.'

http://beacheschb.com.au/home2/

Was there ever any doubt? This is Australia.