Rivergums Residents Group C/0 Post Office Box 428 KWINANA WA 6966 29th August 2012 Cedar Woods

Properties Limited Ground Floor, 50 Colin Street WEST PERTH WA 6005 (Post Office Box 788 West Perth WA 6872) William G. Hames Robert S. Brown Paul S. Sadleir Ronald Packer Timothy Brown Paul Freedman Stuart Duplock Ken Haustead Background We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 5th July 2012 in response to the submission dated 27th June 2012, sent on behalf of 243 residents of Rivergums Estate Baldivis and the surrounding area. We also acknowledge the telephone conversation with Stuart Duplock on 2nd July 2012 when an arrangement was made for a meeting to be held, at 4.30pm on Monday 6th August 2012 at the Sales Office Rivergums, with members of Cedar Woods staff and various residents of Rivergums Estate. The meeting was confirmed in the abovementioned letter. Residents were informed of the meeting and were happy with the opportunity to comment on the response and to discuss matters with Cedar Woods staff. Stuart Duplock had requested the names of attendees to the meeting on 6th August (why) but he didnt advise details of Cedar Woods attendees. At approx 10.15am on 6th August 2012, an email was sent to Stuart Duplock advising details of attendees from Rivergums. The email was returned undelivered so we telephoned Cedar Woods office and spoke with Brooke Edwards who suggested we forward the mail to her and she would forward it to Stuart. We understand she did so. A message, from Stuart Duplock, was retrieved at 1.30pm (on 6th August) from Pam Maddens answering machine. He had left a message at 11.37am cancelling the scheduled meeting due to illness. A number was left for a return call. There was no apology for the late notice. The first Chairman Deputy Chairman Managing Director Independent Director Alternate Director Company Secretary State Manager Senior Development Manager

priority was to attempt to contact the attendees. We mention that one attendee had taken a rostered day off work to attend and another couple had rearranged child minding arrangements. Pam Madden telephoned Cedar Woods office at 1.55pm to speak with Stuart Duplock. She was told he was in a meeting and a message would be forwarded to him to return her call. Three days later on 9th August at 3.30pm the call was returned. Stuart suggested the following Monday 13th August at 5pm for the rescheduled meeting. Pam said she would try to contact the residents but with the short notice it may not be possible, so the 20th August was suggested as a possible alternative but to be confirmed. Over the next few days, the residents who were to attend on 6th August confirmed they were able to go to the 13th August meeting. On Sunday 12th August there was a bereavement in Pam Maddens family and with all the issues surrounding that event, it was forgotten to ring Stuart on 13th to confirm that days meeting. She, however, ensured she was home in time for the meeting at 5pm. At 3.50pm on the said 13th August Stuart Duplock telephoned and cancelled the meeting because his colleagues had made other arrangements because he hadnt heard from us. It was offered to reschedule the meeting again but we said we would send a written response first. It is the feeling of residents that Cedar Woods actions in response to the submission reflects a cavalier attitude to the Rivergums Residents concerns. This is supported by the following. Stuart Duplock stated during the telephone conversation on 2nd July 2012 that, although he would respond in writing to the submission, he wanted to have a meeting with Residents using words along the lines he didnt want to enter into a slinging letter exchange over the issue. It was suggested he wasnt taking the issue seriously, a point he denied. We feel that Stuarts comments in the telephone acknowledgement of 2nd July to the submission, the telephone message left on 6th August cancelling that afternoons meeting without apology, the delay in responding to our contact of 6th August, then Stuarts telephone call at 3.50pm on 13th August cancelling that afternoons meeting because his colleagues had made other arrangements due to not hearing from us. It was the feeling of the, again inconvenienced residents, that Cedar Woods had not intended to attend the meeting on 13th August because there would have been a staff member who could have telephoned early in the day to enquire if the meeting was confirmed before his colleagues had made other arrangements. Responses to Cedar Woods letter dated 5 July 2012. The same numbering regime is used as in the letter. Structure Plan 1. Residents involved in the petition were unaware the trees on Lot 9023 were to be destroyed by Cedar Woods and dispute that plans advertised by the company clearly indicate the land would be developed in the future. 2. The recently approved Structure Plan advertised for public comment in June 2009 was that the one for which amendments were sought and which were approved by the City in March 2012? Unfortunately there are no records of information made available to residents in June 2009.

5. The Residents are well aware of the issues with the Rivergum trees along the Boulevard which were planted by a previous owner. When the Rivergums Residents Association was operational, Ken Haustead was asked on several occasions to approve and arrange for the under planting of more suitable trees along the Boulevard so that when the time comes that the existing trees. The request was refused. 6. Why is open space for the retention of the trees on Lot 9023 unlikely to be supported by the planning authorities? Can you please let us know what the other important criteria is which needs to be met when deciding upon the location of POS? We note the City of Rockinghams Mayor Sammels comments recently in the local paper, in respect to another matter, that the city regarded trees as being highly desirable to the environment and essential to the urban landscape. Estate Presentation We will have to agree to differ about the presentation of the entry to the estate. It is felt that your comment suggests the rundown entrance is acceptable by Cedar Woods standards. It is not acceptable by Rivergums Residents standards. The retention of the subject trees would assist hugely in the overall ambience of this rundown Estate. We acknowledge the City of Rockingham must take some responsibility for extremely poor condition of the lawns and gardens under its responsibility, but Cedar Woods are still marketing and making certain claims. Website Cedar Woods comment suggests that if the Residents hadnt raised the issue, the company would have gone along with the misinformation contained on the website. As recent as last weekend Cedar Woods advertised in the West Australian , lakeside blocks for sale surrounded by natural bushland....... What does ..................through the implementation of our own corporate social responsibility avctivities mean on your website? Safety This seems to be an issue which hasnt been appropriately considered by Cedar Woods. It seems that Cedar Woods may have little knowledge of the reality of the traffic issues which are already causing difficulties in and around the subject land and which will increase when all of the new land is built on and when both schools are operational. To state that concern regarding safety is a driver behaviour issue which should be referred to the local police is a throw away comment to disregard any responsibility on the part of Cedar Woods who could step up and assist in the safety issue by agreement to the request to amend its Structure Plan to maintain lot 9023 in its present state. (refer to Cedar Woods claims about social responsibility on its website) The residents who live on the opposite side of Rivergums Boulevarde, on the block nearest to the roundabout have experienced difficulties with safety issues, although the property was approved for residential by Cedar Woods and the City. The result is a large boundary wall having to be built as a safety precaution. The wall raises other safety issues for traffic entering the Boulevarde from Litoria as vision is compromised.

Cedar Woods does have a social responsibility to be aware of the possible consequences of its decisions and actions, especially when there is already a precedent in the Rivergums estate. Public Open Space How many extra blocks has Cedar Woods been able to develop as a result of reducing the POS by 2.00ha? The considerable extra revenue would no doubt offset and more the cost of submitting a new Structure Plan to the City to keep Lot 9023 as POS. 4. We note the claim of 3,500m2 of Parks and Recreation land being provided by Cedar Woods near Safety Bay Road. Could you please let us know which land that is? Further that is not relevant to the submission for the retention of the treed Lots 9023. It is also stated Cedar Woods has provided a significant area known as the Tramway Reserve. The Residents understood the Tramway Reserve was set aside by the WA Government in the 1920s to provide access to Group Settlement Scheme land. The Tramway Reserve ran from Jandakot to Karnup and although the Tramway wasnt built in Baldivis the Reserve was retained as POS. The Residents have been advised by long term residents of the area that Cedar Woods cleared a large portion of the Tramway Reserve when it first developed Rivergums but was required by the City to revegetate the Reserve. 5.d We are all well aware of the need to conserve water and reiterate that retaining Lot 9023 in its present state would conserve water. The development of the extra lots in the 2ha recently excised from POS will doubtless use far more water due to swimming pools, gardens and household use than well designed POS using native plants and trees ever would. We reiterate our comments in our submission that trees provide a valuable visual amenity and play an increasingly valuable role in our urban environment. Research shows trees improve air quality (trap airborne polluants, absorb carbon dioxide, produce oxygen) and also improve the quality of our urban environment by reducing noise levels, valuable shade etc as well as providing a myriad of other health, sociological and environmental benefits. We are aware that applications to amend Structure Plans are resource intensive but given the extra revenue Cedar Woods will receive from its extra blocks and the cost of not having to further develop the Lots the subject of the Rivergums Residents Group submission, an amendment to retain the trees is possible and doubtless would be successful. Such amendment would also go a long way to ensure Cedar Woods claims of naturalness and social responsibility are correct.

Thank you RIVERGUMS RESIDENTS GROUP