25-27 Boyd Street, Tweed Heads Affordable Housing

I object. Please refer to attached letter.

Hi,
I strongly object the project. There are a few points that stand out to me
1-It appears there is council/affordable housing already so close to the proposed project.I question the reasoning on concentrating affordable housing . Would it not make sense to spread this around?
2-Why such a tall building? The new apartment that is being right beside it not allowed to go to 12 or 13 stories, why does the council approve affordable housing to go that high? I strongly oppose this!
3-What about the lack of parking spaces in the proposed affordable housing? Is it assumed that people will just park on the streets?
There are people already living in caravans on Recreation street and people parking their caravans on Recreation Street and when council is called I'm told they don't have the rangers to deal with it. Tweed police say it is a council issue and the council says they cant do anything about it.

There are finally some positive changes happening in the community and it seems that every step forward there are two steps back. Last year there was a house fire (again) in an abandoned house that people on Boyd St say was a drug den. There are a lot of young families moving in and it seems to be turning a page for the better. Please help make Tweed Heads a safe place to live and raise a family!! Please don't concentrate affordable housing in one small area.

Thank you for your time!!

I'm happy to talk about this further if you wish.

Kind Regards

Concerned Resident

To Whom it May Concern,
Our family development company has been building developments for in excess of 25 years in the Tweed Shire. We are experienced in the demand for and necessity of well-located affordable housing. Indeed, we have been advocating for more support at local council to help meet the demand we see in the private residential market. Our core product is typically aimed at the affordable end of the private housing market.

The introduction is to say in principle, we support social housing with appropriately designed development which meets community needs and expectations. However, in regard project submission provided, despite allowance in Social housing SEPP it is a significant departure from the local LEP in regards to height limits for the location (34m or approx. 10 storeys). Further, our current development on the adjoining site at 26 Recreation St was initially refused at Tweed Shire Council due to 'bulk and scale' at 19m (34m allowed) with 28 dwellings and well under allowable FSR calculations. Council indicated in the refusal that they were meeting community concerns and expectations in regards to 'over development'.
While in a medium density property zoning and emerging area, the proposed design is well in excess of expected outcomes for property owners in the area. The proposal may have more community support if Housing NSW considered a design not exceeding LEP maximum height 34m limits to meet community expectations. ( not a 30% increase on this under the affordable housing SEPP). Under the assumption that the development is being proposed under the affordable housing provisions of Chapter 2, Part 2 the SEPP (Housing) 2021. Within the SEPP I attach from section 20 (3) which speaks towards compatible design and community expectations.

From recent construction experience, there are a number of environmental and geotechnical issues in the immediate location with acid sulphate soils and water quality issues in the underlying water table for managing discharge. This made the consideration of basement carparking financially unviable due to dewatering management constraints. I would expect that Housing NSW are required to meet the same standards as private housing developers in managing environmental outcomes, which may affect inclusion of the proposed basement.

The need for a concentration of social housing close to CBD and services is accepted. However with a development of this scale, the provision of ongoing effective management of the future completed development should be a major consideration. There is inadequate management on existing smaller social housing blocks in the immediate locality which causes many undesirable social impacts. Unless appropriately managed, the addition of a further 80 apartments in close proximity will exacerbate this issue. The social impact study submitted does not adequately address this issue which was the major cause for concern in community engagement meetings. At the very least, the social impact piece should have further input into the actual ongoing future management and safeguards by way of consent conditions to enforce the meeting of conditions

In closing, we support appropriately designed and well managed social housing and agree that it is urgently needed in the area. However, the bulk and scale with regard to the recent refusal on the same basis on the adjoining site along with lack of consideration to the future undesirable community impacts makes the submission unsupportable.

Please feel free to contact me for further consideration or discussion
Kind Regards,
Peter Ross
Director – Rossco Developments
https://www.rosscodevelopments.com/
0412 763533

The height of the development is 3 stories higher than what the town plan allows setting a precedence.
It will significantly affect the ocean and river view from our home and other homes in our street.
I believe it is an overdevelopment of the site.
The parking in our area is also a problem and with 80 units and only 66 parking spaces this development will only add to the parking issues.

The description of the proposal states that there will be 80 units but only 66 carparking spaces.
Building Regulations for residential units, I thought, required at least one carpark per unit and additional visitors parks.
Has this zoned regulations always been 13 levels for this area or had they recently change this?
Regards Vicki

Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission re the 25-27 Boyd Street, Tweed Heads Development proposal.
I have been living in the southern Gold Coast and Tweed Heads areas for some 10 years and indeed have been holidaying in the area since 1960 ; my parents owned a holiday home in Tugun. The southern end of the Gold Coast and the Northern Rivers areas have always been my favourite areas to holiday and live. My wife and I chose to live in Tweed Heads because of the village feel and also for the controlled development in the area; the exceptions being the "BLOTS ON THE LANDSCAPE" Seascape at Tweed Heads and the Tower at Tweed heads South near the shopping centre.
The current unit development nearing completion adjoining the proposed development conforms I understand with current local planning guidelines and fits in very appropriately with the surrounding environment.
I have no objection to the development of the site for the stated purpose but I do have major concerns about the proposed height of the building of some 13 levels . It will be another " Blot on the landscape " and no doubt set a precedent for new development.
Moreover, it will negatively impact our view corridors. We paid a premium when purchasing our property for the wonderful views we have.
Having regard, for the foregoing, I strongly recommend a redesign of the development to conform with current development control guidelines.

I object to the project on the grounds of the proposed height of the building. If the proposed height was for eight stories then I would have no issue with the project as it would keep in line with current buildings in the area.

The proposed building exceeds the local development controls and the general master plan by three storeys, surpassing the height limit and negatively impacting the area's aesthetics. It should be redesigned to comply with the current 10-storey height limit to avoid setting a new precedent for developers.

Additionally, the development plans to provide only 66 car parks for 80 units, which will significantly strain local infrastructure, including street parking and the surrounding residential areas. The project must include more onsite parking to accommodate the density of the units.

Moreover, there are substantial opportunities in the immediate market for the NSW Government to purchase and develop properties to provide more affordable housing. For instance, acquiring 41-43 Boyd Street, a DA-approved 10-storey building currently on the market, and developing two 10-storey buildings would offer more accommodation without exceeding development controls on a single site.

I support affordable housing development in line with the existing development control plans, which already provide significant scope for density.