IN response to the advertisement in the Reporter‘s August 26 edition from a frustrated resident, I am part of the action group that is opposed to the rezoning of land for the Rosehill Waters high-density housing estate.
My husband and I are also very frustrated at being branded bullies, liars and reprehensible people because this is untrue.
We are openly opposed to this housing estate due to the impact it will have on us in particular and the general amenity of the South Guildford area.
We are losing the main attraction for us investing and making our home in this area, which was firstly the golf course with a semi-rural atmosphere.
The proposed development has caused us considerable anguish and stress over the past 10 months.
We are being forced into making decisions on our future in our home that is on the boundary of the estate.
These are not insignificant decisions that we would not have normally been looking at for many years and because our future lifestyle and property value will be greatly affected.
Our house was designed to incorporate and maximise the views and to enjoy the then Rosehill golf course with its open green space, trees and an abundance of birdlife, and our privacy due to no rear neighbours.
As our two-storey house has the main living and outdoor area on the second storey, we would lose our outdoor privacy and the amenity around which our house was designed.
We believe it will be difficult for us to live happily in this house under such changed conditions.
Moreover, we have the dilemma of the significant loss on our investment, which will affect our future financial situation.
If the resident behind the advertisement thinks he is frustrated then he should consider those residents, such as us and many others, who do stand to lose so much and who have very little choice in the matter should this rezoning be approved to accommodate the development plans.
We have never bullied anyone but have actively opposed the rezoning.
We are also mindful that each individual has their own opinion or reason should they oppose or support this development.
D and G BURGE,