Coffs Harbour, Affordable Housing

first thing is the entrance and exit would be north street and not harbour dive. the reason is that when I was a child the girl Palmer was killed while crossing the road. There is a crossing between the Baptist church and the coffs harbour primary school and I don't want another kid killed there.
School buses currently stop in front of the site of the new building and on the other side of the street at the primary school. If they put another exit there another child could be killed That is why I want it in north street
I want the entrance ways to the rooms so the ambulance can get in to take anyone who is sick out on the trolley's rather then carrying them out. Its not right that the ambulance people has to carry them out
Those trees that are at the back of the block I do not want them to be removed because the sugar gliders feed on the sap of the trees and its there food.
Masked Lap Wings they always have four chick every year and I would like some greenery there to cater for the chicks.
I know that we need housing but its important to leave areas for the wildlife.

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed affordable housing project in Coffs Harbour, specifically regarding its location and potential impact on the North Street community.

My primary concerns are as follows:

The project’s close proximity to local schools raises serious safety concerns for our children. Increased traffic, foot traffic, and potential disturbances could jeopardize the peaceful and secure environment currently enjoyed by students and families.

The development does not appear to provide sufficient parking facilities. This shortfall is likely to cause overflow parking on North Street and surrounding areas, leading to congestion and inconvenience for existing residents, many of whom rely on street parking daily.

North Street is home to families, elderly residents, and single women who value the peace, safety, and community spirit of our neighborhood. The introduction of a large affordable housing complex, and the people who utilise this housing risks disrupting this tranquility. I am concerned that the social and community dynamics of North Street will be significantly and negatively affected.

Our home backs onto the laneway between North Street and Curacoa Street, a quiet passageway for residents only. Should this project proceed, I request that absolutely no access—whether for vehicles or pedestrians—be allowed through this laneway. It is vital to maintain the privacy, safety, and security of the residents whose homes face this space.

In light of these concerns, I firmly deny and oppose this affordable housing project as currently proposed. While I support initiatives to provide affordable housing, it must not come at the expense of the safety, peace, and well-being of established communities.

Thank you for considering my submission. I urge the government to take into account the voices of the North Street residents and to rethink the location or design of this project to better protect our neighborhood.

Sincerely,

North st resident

Dear Sir,
I wish to lodge a submission for the Coffs Harbour Affordable Housing Project, SSD
83294209.
No laneway Access: I request that there be no access from the Affordable Housing Complex
into the lane way. Please ensure the wall is high & very robust. A Besser block (concrete)
wall at least 2.5 meters high would be suitable.
The reports & plans on exhibition are contradictory. Some documents state there will be no
access. However, the plans do not show any wall or fence along the boundary with the lane
way. Also, some of the reports state there will be a “gate (into the laneway) leading to the
Regional Botanic Gardens”. Please clarify the plans & clearly exclude laneway access.
Reduce the size of the Affordable Housing Complex: I request that the complex be reduced
in size to 20-30 units & other social housing complexes be built in multiple locations in the
town.
Other large social housing complexes in Coffs Harbour have problems with violent, abusive
& unsafe behaviour. Although the majority of the tenants are good law-abiding citizens,
there is always a minority of people struggling with drug & alcohol abuse & unmanaged
mental health issues. The negative impact of these people is less severe in smaller
complexes. Here in Coffs Harbour we have elderly people living in the larger social housing
complexes who do not feel safe in their units. Surely the NSW Govt should be creating safe
homes, not unsafe homes.
The management of existing social housing in Coffs Harbour is not adequate. In the larger
complexes violent, abusive behaviour often goes unchecked. The trafficking of drugs has
gone unchecked. So again, I urge you to reduce the size of this complex so that these
problems have a better chance of being managed adequately.
Height of the proposed Affordable Housing: The plans show the proposed building height
exceeds the height limit set by the zoning for the land. The building height needs to be
brought down to the acceptable height.

Yours sincerely.

Malalia Floyd

Formal Submission of Objection
Re: Coffs Harbour Affordable Housing Project - North Street, Coffs Harbour
Application Number: SSD-83294209
Address: North Street, Coffs Harbour, NSW
Date: 15.10.2025

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Coffs Harbour Affordable Housing Project on North Street, Coffs Harbour. I do so as a long-term resident of this neighbourhood and one who is deeply invested in the wellbeing, safety, and character of our local community. My husband has lived in this street for nearly forty years, I have lived here for twenty years, and we have both loved and cared for this area as our home. North Street has always been known as a quiet, safe, and family-friendly street where children can play, neighbours support one another, and everyone feels at ease walking around. The proposed development would fundamentally and irreversibly change that.

1. Proximity to Schools and Child Safety
My primary concern is the location of this 60-apartment complex directly beside one primary school and across the road from another, with several preschools and daycares within a short walking distance. This area is filled with young children every weekday morning and afternoon. The streets are lined with parents parking, walking, and collecting their children. It is an environment that should remain calm, predictable, and safe for families. Placing a high-density development of this scale in such close proximity to multiple schools raises serious questions about safety, suitability, and planning foresight. The volume of traffic, the parking overflow, and the increase in strangers frequenting the area will all directly impact the sense of safety that currently defines this neighbourhood. I cannot understand how such a dense project could be considered appropriate immediately beside two primary schools.

2. Parking and Traffic Impact
North Street already experiences significant congestion during school hours. It is a residential road, not designed for heavy or ongoing vehicle traffic. The proposal’s lack of adequate on-site parking will inevitably result in residents and visitors parking along North Street and surrounding roads. This will exacerbate congestion, reduce visibility for children crossing the street, and increase risk for pedestrians, cyclists, and school families. There is no demonstrated capacity for the local infrastructure to absorb such a large and immediate increase in vehicles. This issue alone should warrant reconsideration of the project’s location and design.

3. Community Character and Safety
North Street’s charm lies in its quiet, close-knit atmosphere. It is made up of families, retirees, and individuals who have lived here for decades. We know each other by name, we care for one another, and we take pride in maintaining a peaceful, respectful neighbourhood. The proposed development of 60 dwellings is entirely inconsistent with the existing scale and character of the street. It will overshadow surrounding homes and dramatically increase noise, activity, and population density in an area not suited for it. More importantly, it will alter the feeling of safety that residents currently experience. Many of our neighbours are elderly or single women living alone, and they have already expressed deep anxiety about how such a large-scale complex might affect their security and wellbeing. Young families, too, are worried about letting their children play or walk to school in what could become a busy, congested environment. We all value affordable housing as a social priority, but it must be located appropriately, in areas designed and supported by infrastructure to accommodate higher density living. North Street is not that place.

4. Laneway Access and Privacy
Our property backs onto the laneway between North Street and Curacoa Street. This laneway is a small, quiet service lane used only by local residents to access garages. Should this development proceed (despite strong community objection), I formally request that there be no vehicular or pedestrian access from the development into this laneway. Allowing any form of access would destroy the privacy, security, and peaceful amenity of the homes that border the lane. It would invite additional traffic, loitering, and foot movement in an area that was never intended for public use.

5. Emotional and Community Impact
For many of us, this is not just about buildings or traffic statistics - it’s about home. We have built our lives here. We have raised and are raising our children here. We have cared for neighbours and taken pride in a safe, welcoming, and family-oriented community.
The idea that a 60-apartment development could be placed here, right next to schools and preschools, feels deeply distressing and unfair. It risks eroding the sense of community that makes this area so special. Residents are already fearful. They feel unheard. They feel as though the heart of their neighbourhood is being disregarded for a project that does not fit its surroundings. The emotional toll of that cannot be overstated.

6. A Plea for Responsible Planning
This objection is not rooted in opposition to affordable housing. Most of us understand and support the need for it. What we are opposing is the inappropriate location and scale of this project.

We are asking the government to consider:
- The unsuitability of placing a dense housing development beside two primary schools and multiple childcare centres.
- The traffic and parking safety concerns for children and families.
- The lasting negative impact on the character and wellbeing of a long-established residential community.

7. Conclusion and Request
For all the reasons above, I respectfully and firmly object to the approval of the Coffs Harbour Affordable Housing Project proposed for North Street. I urge the NSW Government and planning authorities to deny or relocate this proposal in the interest of protecting our local families, our children, and the community that has called this place home for generations.

If, despite this objection, the development proceeds, I again request that no access of any kind (vehicular or pedestrian) be permitted from the development into the laneway between North Street and Curacoa Street.

Please, take seriously the voices of the people who live here. We are not resistant to progress, we simply ask for planning decisions that reflect care, safety, and genuine community consideration.

Thank you for your time, attention, and for giving residents the opportunity to be heard.

With sincere concern and respect,
North Street Resident, Coffs Harbour

My submission will be brief, reflecting the paucity of usable, relevant information that the documents provide for nearby residents. How does this high density development mitigate the impacts on me? That's what I want to know. Moreover the exhibition time is very tight. It has to be done on line, without consideration of anyone who may be not familiar with the digital world. It all leaves us with the distinct feeling that we are being railroaded!

However, given the rush to find answers the priority I have is my security and privacy. I have a letter from Homes NSW categorically stating the grassy lane (as it is identified on the EIS document) will not be available as access to the development.
But nowhere can I find how the boundary fence separating the development from the lane will be constructed and of what materials. The boundary fence needs to be substantial with the pressure of the occupants of 60 residential apartments upon it.
can you please clarify this item ?

Finally, if the minister and her department really held the welfare of all NSW residents as a priority, the Minister would have undertaken a far more considered and detailed approach to the existing residents of the area. This development will result in another social failure. You build them and then forget them.

Subject: Urgent Concerns Regarding Proposed ‘Affordable Housing’ Development at 211a-215 Harbour Drive, Coffs Harbour.


To whom this may concern,

I am writing to express my grave concerns and those of my neighbours regarding the proposed housing development at 211a -215 Harbour Drive, Coffs Harbour, Coffs Harbour. While we understand the need for affordable housing, the current plan is not only unsuitable but also threatens the very fabric and well-being of our community. Here are the most salient points that underscore our position:

1. * Grossly Inappropriate Density
The proposed development seeks to cram 60 units onto the equivalent of three house blocks, resulting in a density 20 times greater than the surrounding area. This is unprecedented in our residential neighbourhood and along the entire stretch of Harbour Drive to the Jetty. The sheer number of residents this would accommodate (over 200) far exceeds the current population of the entire surrounding area. This drastic increase in population density will have a significant and lasting impact on our community's social cohesion and functionality.

2.* Height Violation and Dominant Streetscape:
The proposed building, if approved in its current form, would not only violate established zoning regulations but also set an alarming precedent for future developments in established residential neighbourhoods. The structure exceeds the permitted height limit by a significant margin, measuring 16.7 meters compared to the stipulated 15.5 meters. This breach of height control limits is not merely a technical infraction; it represents a disregard for the well-being and quality of life of the residents who have chosen to live in this low-density neighbourhood.
The sheer size of the proposed building, coupled with its excessive height, would impose an unmistakable dominance over the surrounding homes and public spaces. It would not only dwarf existing structures but also cast a long, oppressive shadow over our streets, backyards and schools. The resulting loss of privacy and personal space would be profound, with residents forced to contend with the constant, intrusive presence of this monolithic structure.
Moreover, the increased height and size of the building would dramatically elevate light pollution, further disrupting the natural rhythm of lives and infringing upon the right to a peaceful, restful environment. The quality of our local soundscape would also be negatively impacted, with increased noise pollution from both the construction phase and the building's subsequent occupation.
The potential impact on property values cannot be overstated. Homeowners in our neighbourhood have invested not only their financial resources but also their hopes and dreams into our community. A structure of this magnitude, imposing and out of character with our neighbourhood, would undoubtedly have a detrimental effect on property values, threatening the financial security of families.
As mentioned, the approval of this building would establish a dangerous precedent for future developments and re-zoning efforts. It would signal to developers that our neighbourhood is ripe for high-density, high-impact projects, potentially leading to a domino effect of similar proposals that would fundamentally alter the character and fabric of our community.
I encourage you to uphold the zoning regulations that were put in place to protect our community and to ensure that future developments are in harmony with, not in dominance over, our existing homes and public spaces.
In the interest of transparency and accountability, I request that you make the full environmental impact assessment, including the findings on light and noise pollution, publicly available. I also request that you provide a detailed explanation of how this proposed building aligns with the established zoning regulations and the best interests of our community.

3. *Insufficient Parking and Traffic Congestion:
The proposed development offers a mere 29 car spaces for over a hundred residents. This is grossly inadequate and will place immense pressure on already strained street parking, particularly in Curacoa Street, which is at capacity during weekdays and weekends. Furthermore, traffic flows during peak times, such as school drop-offs and pick-ups, and major events at the Botanic Gardens, are already at capacity. The additional traffic generated by this development will only serve to exacerbate these issues, creating gridlock and significantly impacting our quality of life and that of all people living near and passing through this area of the city.

4. *Isolation and Loss of Community:
The scale of the proposed development is not only too large for the surrounding area but also for the residents themselves. Living in such a large building will foster a sense of isolation from both the surrounding community and other residents within the complex. This goes against the very essence of community and quality of life, which should be a priority in the design of any building, especially one funded by the government.



5. *Misleading Artist Renderings:
It is disingenuous to present artist renderings of the proposed building with false softening techniques, such as out-of-scale trees, to make the structure appear smaller than it is. This is especially egregious when those trees could never realistically exist in the limited space provisioned along this public road and major traffic thoroughfare.

In conclusion, we strongly urge you to reconsider this rushed project and its short-sighted approach to maximising the use of the site at the expense of long-term community success. We implore you to engage with local residents and planners to create a development that is appropriate in scale, scope, and integration with our community. A smaller development, in line with other high-density residential developments along Harbour Drive, would be a more suitable and sustainable solution.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We sincerely hope that public concerns will be taken seriously enough to amend the current proposition.


Sincerely,

I strongly object to this project due to the close proximity to 2 primary schools and 2 daycares, this project is highly inappropriate as it will put the children at all of these schools at risk of being exposed to antisocial behaviour, the multi story design would allow people to look straight into the christian community school yard and also has a lane way that would allow people in this building to approach the school fence at the back. This is incredibly unsettling because we know that there is no way the government can assure the community that the individuals living in this building will not take advantage of the close proximity in which they are living to hundreds of vulnerable children. I would expect that in light of the recent exposure of abuse at daycares and the epidemic of child pornography online that the government would put the safety of children first.
The proposed driveway also seemed to be exactly where the kids catch the bus. The young explorers daycare is also across the road
from the eastern proposed entry.
Aside from the obvious risk to the children's privacy the other danger to the children will come from the extra traffic in the area, this area is already extremely busy and I believe that having a construction of this size will increase the risk of a car accident at school pick up and drop off.
I am not against social housing but I am extremely against social housing being built next to a school and a daycare, the government has a responsibility to protect innocent children.

I have serious concerns about the size, the suitability, access and intergration of the development into the existing community of single storey Homes and the adjacent Primary Schools.
Whilst the proponents of this development are obviously enthusiastic in intending to maximise the use of the site, they have missed or undervalued their responsibility to ensure they maintain social cohesion and a balanced healthy community.
A rushed project based on short term urgency does not make for good long term outcomes.
Local residents do want to support people in need of accomodation but not in a way that fails to deliver a successful outcome for everyone involved. This must include the needs of the existing community of residents not only the new short term occupants of this proposed development.
The proposed building density is 20 times greater than the rest of the surrounding area for the equivalent land area.20x!
( 60 units on the equivalent of 3 house blocks, ie.20 units per house site=20 to 1 ratio. ).
This is unprecidented in this residental area.
(or any where else along Harour Drive all the way to the Jetty where there is high density Tourist accomodation of less scale than this!.)
This means the number of people living out of this one new building will be greater than the entire population of all of the surrounding homes in all the adjoining streets (North St and Curacoa St.)
It is undeniable that this will have a major impact on the existing social cohesion and functionality of the community..
This is a low density residential area and the proposed building will dwarf the surrounding homes and schools , dominating the streetscape in all directions.
The proposed building is also taller than the allowed maximum heights.
The proposal is in breach of the height control limits allowed for this residential area.
As a resident who abides by the local government rules I would expect that all other parties are also held to the same standards.
The proposal has in a building height of 16.7 meters, which is over the permitted limit of 15.5 meters.
I am not allowed to ignore /bend the rules , neither should anyone else just because it suits them.
The increased height further adds to the imposing dominance that this building will have over the existing homes if allowed to proceed as it is currently proposed.
To say that this building will dwarf the surrounding area cannot be overstated.
The scale of the proposal is also not in proprtion to the local community and it's ability to support such a large number of social housing homes in one concentrated site..
For example the car parking provided on site is 29 car spaces .
This is for well over a hundred residents.
I understand that there is a formula used to arrive at this number in order to meet a mimimum provision requirement.
But in reality this means that much greater extra pressure on the limited nearby street car parking will be experinced by current occupants and users.
Parking monday to friday is already at capacity in Curacoa Street (and also weekends with church attendees.)
In addition traffic flows, already at capacity during peak times, ( school drop off and pick up times and major events at the Botanic Gardens ) would become even worse. I cannot access my garage to use my car at these times due to the grid lock of vehicles on the street.
These are examples of issues that non local planners do not have awareness of.

I would be in favour of a smaller development of 2 stories height in alignment with other high desity residential developments currently being built along Harbour Drive.
This would allow the structure to somewhat blend in with the surrounding area .
Also for the residents of this complex the scale is obviously too large and will create a sense of isolation from the rest of the community as well as from other residents themselves.To live in such a large building you cannot expect people will know who their neighbours are little alone those who live in the surrounding streets.
It's called community and quality of life and must be a priority in the design of any building especialy a government funded building where the government is reponsible for its outcomes.
The long term outlook for the success of this development is very poor.
Planning a development without local knowledge is recipie for disaster.
This is not an outer suburb of Sydney and the dynamics here are very different.
Scale and scope and intergration must match the location, not just blithely increase numbers of houses built.
On another note I would say that it is misleading to offer artist renders of the proposed building with obviously false softening using images of large trees out of scale to make the building look smaller than it is, especialy when those treees do not exist and could never exist in the limited space provisioned along the street set backs.
Thank you for asking for feedback from local resients of Coffs Harbour to guide you in determing this proposals suitabilty for this site.
With thanks
Andrew Sutherland
24 North Street
Coffs Harbour
NSW 2450

Good evening.
My name is Terry Kelsey.
I own a house with my wife Sam at number 4 North Street Coffs Harbour, which is 3 doors down from this proposed development.
My wife and I strongly OPPOSE and OBJECT to the building of the development proposal application number SSD 83294209 on the following grounds.
1. Traffic:
There will be a significant increase in traffic which will cause congestion in our street. Both whilst under construction of the project and once this residential block of units is complete.
We are very concerned about this increase due to an already high volume of traffiic in and around this site.
There are four small businesses in North street which already produce large volumes of traffic including school pick up and drop off on a daily basis.
2. Safety:
My wife and I have concerns about this development being for affordable housing.
It is a fact that social housing brings with it many challenges and can raise concerns for peoples safety.
One of our main concerns is there are five primary schools /education facilities in this small area.
There is no confirmation from the Department of Housing as to the character of the clientele that will be housed here.
3. Car Parking:
Parking in North Street is at a minimum due to the fact that there are small businesses and also education facilities along the street. Most of the residents that live in North Street, require street parking for their vehicles. With the increase of occupants and visitors at this development, this will place strain on parking.
4. Traffic congestion Harbour Drive:
The proposal to put an entrance to the building from Harbour Drive and North Street we believe will place unnecessary strain on these areas.
There is already significant traffic congestion along Harbour Drive during school hours and at drop off and pick up times for buses.
The entrance area for this proposed building, has not been thought through thoroughly by local government /Council or by the Housing Department.
SUMMARY:
There are concerns that increased density and population may place additional pressure on local infrastructure, including child safety measures such as traffic control, pedestrian pathways, and school zones.
The proposed development will led to increased traffic and reduced visibility in areas where children walk or play, raising potential safety issues. Changes to the neighbourhood environment may require a reassessment of child safety provisions including safe routes to school and public play areas and parks.
Local families are concerned that the influx of residence could compromise child safety, particularly in terms of increased road traffic and strain on already limited recreational spaces.
Residents worry that planned development such as this may reduce the overall safety of children and the elderly in our area due to higher traffic volumes.
There is a need for careful planning to ensure that the safety of children and the elderly are not adversely affected by the increase in population density associated with this social housing development.

As a neighbouring property we the Eldership would like to have more information than is available on the website. It would be in our mutual interest to have a better understanding of:
Impact Analysis (as we haven't been part of the consultation thus far)
Gross floor area (footprint of the project)
Impact on the school and the church (as there are activities eg. noise levels that will need to be accounted for/mitigated against future complaints)
Groundwater impact assessment: (and Statement) due to the previous removal of existing Bedsit units (many years ago) we have been inundated with runoff and have had several flooding events and most recently ( as we have just spent $20,000 in order to address water ingress to our property from the project block)
Landscape plan: Consultation and communication about about the fencing and security between both properties
EIS (particularly the social impact statement): Is it for Aged ?? ... (proximity to schools !!)
Flood Impact Risk (FIRA): (as discussed above) .. due to North St not having any Kerb and gutters.
Public Space Plan:
Risk mitigation during the building process
We would be better informed to have this information ASAP so that we can respond.
Thank you,
Rev Raymond Budge

I believe the site chosen at 211A-215 Harbour Drive, Coffs Harbour is unsuitable mainly from an urban future planning frame but it is also highly inappropriate if the targeted social housing residents are to be mostly seniors.
In the consultation report, ‘The majority of current social housing tenants in the LGA are older, past working age, living alone and relying on the age, disability pension or other pension for income’. Seniors do not need to be located close to schools, work places and a busy noisy road and they don’t want to be restricted from enjoying warmer protected north facing areas and walking along quiet laneways. 211A-215 Harbour Drive would better serve the community as a green space designated for public and cultural uses. It should provide visual amenity with recreational use for surrounding school children and provide space to establish a community garden for nearby affordable housing residents.
This site could also be very useful as a safe assembly operational zone in times of disaster management.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Development Application for an affordable housing complex located at 221A-215 Harbour Drive, Coffs Harbour. As a local resident and concerned member of the community, I have significant concerns regarding the suitability of this development at the proposed location.
1. Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Impacts
The proposed development’s driveway access is currently used as a designated pick-up and drop-off zone for school buses, which serves children from a nearby school. Introducing regular vehicle access for residents, deliveries, and visitors in this location poses a serious safety risk to school children, families, and pedestrians. This conflict of use is highly inappropriate in a high-traffic area, especially during school peak hours.
2. Overdevelopment and Streetscape Impacts
The proposed four-storey height is out of character with the surrounding built environment on Harbour Drive and represents a significant overdevelopment of the site. The bulk and scale will dominate the streetscape and set an undesirable precedent for future development. Furthermore, the building will obstruct the view from the adjacent heritage property that was once the police station of Coffs Harbour, impacting the amenity and potential value of that property.
3. Privacy Concerns
The design includes balconies overlooking school playgrounds, which raises serious privacy concerns for school children. This is an unacceptable intrusion into an educational environment where privacy and safety must be prioritised. The location of balconies facing the school playgrounds should not be permitted.
4. Increased Congestion and Lack of Infrastructure
This section of Harbour Drive is already highly congested, especially during school hours and peak commuting times. The addition of a development housing with upwards of 60 tenants will place further strain on traffic flow, street parking, and local infrastructure.
5. Amenity Impacts to Neighbours
In addition to the heritage impact, the development will reduce access to natural light and outlook for neighbouring properties, further diminishing their amenity. The scale and placement of the building will likely cast shadows and dominate the visual outlook of surrounding homes and businesses.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I believe this DA is inappropriate for the proposed location and should be refused in its current form. If Council is minded to approve the development, I urge that significant modifications and conditions be imposed, such as:
• Relocating vehicle access away from the school bus zone
• Reducing the building height and scale
• Re-orienting or screening balconies to preserve school privacy
• Requiring a detailed traffic and safety management plan
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposal and trust that Council will give full consideration to the concerns of local residents.

Security We would like the boundary fence to be 2.6m We were robbed some 15 years ago when the legacy units had social housing tenants
We are very concerned about the lack of parking spaces in North street if the building project proceeds.

1. I am very concerned about the increased traffic flow in North Street which is already a busy street during business hours due to schools, child care and other businesses located in the street. Residents often have cars parked on their verge and often across driveways, when garages are provided, and I am concerned that with 60 units being built and only parking for 30 units, that there will be many more cars parked in North Street.

2. North Street is one of the oldest streets in Coffs Harbour leading to the historic cemetery but is not kerb and guttered. As there will be increased vehicle traffic and parking in the street, the areas that have not been kerb and guttered will have their verge area damaged and this look will not add to the attractiveness of an historic street. I would like to recommend that in consultation with Coffs Harbour Council, that all of North Street be kerb and guttered.

3. I would like to be reassured that there will be no vehicle entrance to the complex from North Street.



Thank you.

This project will put significantly larger numbers of people in an area that is near two schools. We are concerned that during construction it will be hazardous for children attempting to walk to school. The larger numbers of people in the area will add extra traffic to our neighbourhood, which is already quite busy on school days.

In addition, the Affordable Housing is going to be located on Harbour Drive, one of the busier roads in the area. We are concerned that tenants trying to exit and enter the property in a motor vehicle will add to traffic congestion. There is a lack of pedestrian crossings to allow large numbers of tenants on foot to safely cross the roads adjacent to the property.

The four storeys of the Affordable Housing project will make this the tallest building in the neighbourhood. This will mean the tenants will be overlooking every other property nearby. Neighbours who have privacy fences will find that they no longer have any privacy, with tenants of the new project able to look into their properties.

In addition, this new project's building will be much taller than, and therefore out of character, with historic buildings such as the one currently used by the chiropractor on Harbour Drive. It will also be out of character with the nearby Baptist Church and the nearby schools, since none of these have a building taller than two storeys.

Further, there are currently unused building sites around Coffs Harbour, such as the old police station, the old council chambers, the old library, and others could be put to use. In those locations, a four-story building would be more in keeping with what it would be replacing. It would also better suit those locations, as those neighbouring properties are already accustomed to taller buildings.

I write to you in my capacity as Principal of Coffs Harbour Christian Community Primary School. I am writing on behalf of the hundreds of parents who daily entrust the safety, education, and wellbeing of their children to our school. I wish to formally express my strong concern and objection to the proposed development of a social housing project in immediate proximity to our school grounds. Please see the attached image to highlight proximity concerns.

Our primary school serves a diverse and vibrant student body, aged 4 to 11 years, who spend their formative years within this environment. We take our safeguarding responsibilities with the utmost seriousness, and parents place a deep trust not only in our staff, but in the surrounding community that forms an essential part of the safe, stable environment their children rely on.

Social housing serves an important purpose, but it often brings a higher degree of transient residency and, in some cases, individuals who may be facing complex social challenges with behaviours that are incompatible an environment filled with vulnerable young children.

The proposed development raises a number of significant concerns:
1. Child Safety and Vulnerability:
Young children are particularly vulnerable. The primary school serves very young children, many of whom walk to school or play outside under limited supervision. The introduction of a high-density housing development so close to this sensitive environment raises significant concerns about child safety and community stability. The proximity of high-density housing—particularly if it results in a transient population or includes individuals with complex social histories—may introduce an unpredictable dynamic immediately outside our gates. Increased foot traffic, unfamiliar individuals loitering, or any rise in antisocial behaviour near school grounds is incompatible with our community’s duty to safeguard children. The proposed development is directly in front of the school bus stop where many children disembark and walk unattended to school. This development is incompatible with the student's bus stop.

2. Disruption to the Learning Environment:
A sudden shift in the nature of the surrounding area could negatively impact the emotional wellbeing of our students, staff, and families. With increase uncertainty about student safety this can significantly impact on the anxiety levels of students and negatively affect the calm learning environment. A key part of our success as a school lies in the sense of community trust and security that has been built up over many years.

3. Erosion of Community Confidence:
Many families have chosen to live in this area and send their children to our school precisely because of its calm, safe, and supportive environment. Parents must feel confident in the overall safety of the school surroundings—not just the buildings and school grounds. There is a genuine fear that placing a concentrated development of this nature so close to a school could fundamentally alter the atmosphere and social fabric of our area.
I want to make it clear that this objection is not a dismissal of the importance of social housing or of providing for those in need—values that we support and teach within our school. Rather, it is a request that such development be thoughtfully located in areas where infrastructure, community services, and child safety considerations are appropriately balanced.
We respectfully urge the planning authority to consider an alternative location for this development—one that is not directly adjacent to two (2) primary schools and does not place vulnerable children at risk.

On behalf of the children, parents and school community, we object to this development proceeding. If this development ignores our objections and proceeds despite the significant concerns raised, it is essential that the following conditions be implemented to mitigate potential harm:
1. Age Restriction for Occupants
The development should be limited to residents aged 55 and over. This restriction will help reduce the likelihood of disruptive or risky behaviour that may arise from younger tenants, thereby protecting the vulnerable school community.

2. Employment Requirement for Residency
The development must remain designated as affordable housing, with a condition that all occupants are gainfully employed. This measure aims to reduce the risk of antisocial behaviour and ensure a stable and responsible resident population.

3. Design Restrictions on Courtyards
No private courtyards should face the school grounds. Any outdoor areas should be designed as communal thoroughfares to prevent loitering and ensure visibility and accountability.

4. Privacy and Safety Measures for Windows and Balconies
The development must not include balconies or windows that overlook the school. This is essential to preserve the privacy and safety of students and staff, and to prevent any inappropriate observation of school activities.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I trust that the welfare of our local children and the preservation of a safe community will be central to any planning decision. We would welcome the opportunity to engage further as a significant stakeholder.


Please find attached:
• Image that highlights the location concerns and the proximity to two primary schools and multiple learning areas that cater for vulnerable children.
• Photos that show the location of school bus stops directly in front of the proposed site and directly opposite the proposed site.
• Photos that show very young students walking to school directly in front of this site on their daily route to school.

Yours Sincerely
Andrew Lynn
Principal

We are extremely disappointed that a propoded 4 story buikgding is so close to our home that will affect our privacy.There will be 4 units {1 on each floor) facing the southern side of our home where our bedroom and ensuite are located.
We are very concerned about the location of 60 affordable units in the midst of a large number of young school children. Coffs harbour primary,Christian Community primary Gungana Gumbaynggir Freedom school Young Exployers pre school Serendipity pre schooll Whole school In Glenreagh St

My objection is primarily based on the development's anticipated detrimental effect on public safety, local amenity, and existing infrastructure capacity.

The development will significantly increase the volume of traffic on local residential streets, specifically Harbour drive (school pick up and drop off area's for two local schools ) and North street, This increase will exacerbate existing congestion during peak hours and presents a heightened safety risk for pedestrians and cyclists. The current road network and intersection capacities are insufficient to safely absorb this additional load.
The proposed parking allocation for the development appears inadequate, leading to significant overspill parking onto surrounding residential streets. This will reduce resident accessibility, obstruct emergency vehicle access, and diminish the general amenity of the neighborhood.

Strain on Public Services (Schools): The influx of new residents, particularly families, will place an unsustainable burden on local public services. Specifically, Coffs harbour public school, Coffs harbour Christian community school,is currently operating at or near capacity. An increased enrollment demand will compromise the quality of education and lead to overcrowding.

Public Amenity and Security: The increased population density, combined with the lack of appropriate street lighting and security measures within the proposed development, raises legitimate concerns regarding anti-social behavior and the potential for malicious damage to private property and public spaces. The planning should mandate comprehensive and appropriate public safety infrastructure.

My objection is primarily based on the development's anticipated detrimental effect on public safety, local amenity, and existing infrastructure capacity.

The development will significantly increase the volume of traffic on local residential streets, specifically Harbour drive (school pick up and drop off area for two local schools ) and North street, This increase will exacerbate existing congestion during peak hours and presents a heightened safety risk for pedestrians and cyclists. The current road network and intersection capacities are insufficient to safely absorb this additional load.
The proposed parking allocation for the development appears inadequate, leading to significant overspill parking onto surrounding residential streets. This will reduce resident accessibility, obstruct emergency vehicle access, and diminish the general amenity of the neighborhood.

Strain on Public Services (Schools): The influx of new residents, particularly families, will place an unsustainable burden on local public services. Specifically, Coffs harbour public school, Coffs harbour Christian community school,is currently operating at or near capacity. An increased enrollment demand will compromise the quality of education and lead to overcrowding.

Public Amenity and Security: The increased population density, combined with the lack of appropriate street lighting and security measures within the proposed development, raises legitimate concerns regarding anti-social behavior and the potential for malicious damage to private property and public spaces. The planning should mandate comprehensive and appropriate public safety infrastructure.

I hope the above raised concerns are adopted and the project is relocated to a more suitable area, away from an area with no primary schools within 2km.
At present there are 3 primary schools within 500 meters of this development.

I support the proposal to bring more Affordable Housing to Coffs Harbour