Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment

I object to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD-47105958).

This is blatantly not about Aged Care. It is about property overdevelopment from an Aged Care Provider under the guise of aged care. This development is not increasing by more than a few places for Aged Care, but is mainly for residential units, a big money grabber. This is a blatant attempt to sneak a mega residential development into a low rise area under the guise of ‘aged care’, at the detriment to the local community as a whole, but in particular the neighbouring residential residents. This is NOT affordable housing or about aged care needs – this is aimed at wealthy retirees and revenue generation and profit for Uniting.

If this goes ahead, the negative implications on neighbouring residents and Kingscliff as a whole will be catastrophic. The overall design and plan is completely over the top and will absolutely destroy the character and context of the surrounding streets.
The invasiveness of 16m high buildings with hundreds of windows looking over existing single level residences, into their living areas, kitchens, front and back yards, courtyard areas and clotheline’s is not acceptable. Four story buildings do not belong in this area of Kingscliff, particularly in such close proximity to so many existing single level dwellings.

There will be parking implications for neighbouring streets that are already full each night with residents parking on the streets. The overflow of parking from the development during construction and once operational will mean that local longstanding residents of nearby streets will not be able to even get a park anywhere near their own homes. There will also be parking implications in the main street and at the local supermarket carpark in Kingscliff, which is already maxed out and at capacity following the opening of the new Tweed Valley Hospital.

Another major concern is the flooding implications for local nearby residents. By filling in an area of land that completely flooded and filled with water during the 2022 floods, with a massive development creates negative implications and concerns for future floods.

The extra traffic that will be caused to family friendly streets in neighbouring streets will have a negative impact on the lifestyle of all of the existing residents and their families. The noise generated from the access of service vehicles, garbage trucks, residents, visitors, deliveries will be disruptive to local residents - during both construction and once operational.

The development does not have a meaningful increase in aged care beds, the reality is that it is a mega residential property development with a minute number of aged care places thrown in, with the project being sold as ‘seniors housing’ as a cover up.
Whilst we understand and acknowledge there is a need for increased aged care and seniors housing, there are many other more appropriate sites that will not negatively impact the many neighouring residents in such a negative way and to the detriment of their current lifestyles and the enjoyment of the comfort of their own homes.

I object to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD-47105958)
The proposed project will surpass the current building height limit of 13.6m by more than 3 metres, which is completely unacceptable as it does not align with the surrounding buildings and the character of Kingscliff.
Major revisions are required of the current proposal, which includes making publicly available independent civil and structural modelling of how raising this site using 3 metres of fill will impact water dispersal and flooding risk to the existing community. Considering the existing flood risk in this area, it appears that this development is primarily driven by a desire to profit from luxury housing rather than meet the genuine accommodation needs for aged care. It is clearly evident these existing development plans will negatively impact on the quality of life and peaceful living for current residents, including the escalation of traffic noise and congestion, along with the overshadowing, reduction of community spaces, views, and other aspects for surrounding community.
Therefore, it is crucial that all parties involved in the site's development provide transparent legal and financial documentation to inform the surrounding community about how they will take responsibility for repairing the damage and provide financial compensation for all detrimental future impacts to the surrounding community and householders. I am willing to join a class action committee to ensure that all parties involved in this development are financially accountable for all negative effects it will cause the Kingscliff community.

I object to Application No. SSD-47105958 based on the following reasons:

- Size and scale of the development not aligning with the existing built environment

-Height of the buildings exceeding the Kingscliff Locality Plan height limit of 13.6m

-Serious overshadowing concerns for the surrounding properties

-Privacy concerns for the surrounding properties due to the height of the buildings and proximity to existing dwellings

-Flooding to surrounding properties due to filling the current site

-Increased traffic flow and parking issues on surrounding streets

Site Location:
Small in relation to size of project, jammed in and surrounded by family homes
Flood prone land - without Flood Draft Plan finalised
Flow on absolute flood danger to residents of 2022 flooding and more that will be impacted with build
Surrounding properties and streets were flooded. Waters rose over the height of the 2019 flood, Where is concern for neighbours already stressed from flooding to date, What of the stress of further flooding that may be brought about from Uniting’s build?

Visual Infringement:
Neighbours backing on the the site, lose their right for privacy as the taller buildings face the neighbours to the south. No pool privacy, no back yard privacy and many clear windows will be looking directly into neighbours homes. Has there been a shade study? Most importantly, Kingscliff has a height restriction that must be adhered.

Parking:
At the moment parking is at a premium on Beach Street, As it is, numerous buses pass along Beach Street, many times having to give way to on coming traffic due to vehicles park on both sides of the street. I certainly do not agree with United Church representative who had the audacity to say "Few over 70 drive". Hogwash!!

Disruptions
Kingscliff Street has already become a local highway. The locals need to be considered. If construction were to occur, locals would be disadvantaged, with numerous trucks and workers causing excessive noise and very heavy traffic flow.

I live in Lorien Way and will be directly impacted. I have concerns with the following:
The lack of additional beds for the massive increase in infrastructure - in light of the current housing crisis any major developments should be providing significant increased affordable housing - this does not appear to be the case so is hardly in the best interests of the community
Increased traffic - Lorien way is already a busy road because of the bus route - more buses and more cars for the uniting care visitors will take spots and decrease visibility. Hospital staff are already starting to use the street.
Shadowing of my home
loss of ocean breeze and ocean sounds
loss of privacy! I will have multiple windows looking down into my home
Increased risk of flooding!! This is huge - this empty land has flooded - where will the water go??!
Disingenuous motives - the community is naturally supportive of increased senior living options but this design appears to be based on greed. The apartments will be in excess of 1 million It is absolutely tone deaf to the housing crisis and cost of living and the challenges seniors are facing
Please take the concerns of the community seriously
Regards
Helen daly

As a nearby resident of the proposed uniting care development I am writing to notify the NSW Dept Planning of my objection to the current proposal over 24A Kingscliff Street, Kingscliff for the following reasons:
1. Size and Scale - The proposed building layout, size and scale is completely out of keeping with the local context of the surrounding area.
2. Height and Visual Impacts – The proposed development includes 4 and 5 storey buildings plus basements. When considering that they plan to fill above the existing ground level, the result will be a drastic change in the visual impact in the local area. The location of these building will create a ‘wall’ from many existing unobstructed view points around the site and this is not accurately represented in the visuals provided in the reports. They are very misleading and include tree which are either removed by the development or should not be proposed as they would be located on neighbours boundaries, in stormwater easements or on top of basements.
3. Impacts to Neighbours – The proposed development will have significant impacts to neighbouring properties on all sides in regard to shade, privacy, solar, acoustic and amenity impacts.
4. Lack of detail, misleading or incorrect reports – The reports provided by the applicant either intentionally or unintentionally included discrepancies in regards to:
a. Traffic impacts and access
b. Flooding impacts and details regarding maximum floods and accuracies in the local network
c. No civil engineering detail provided at all
d. Incorrect survey levels and cross sections in attempting to justify impacts
e. Landscaping designs and calculations clearly wrong, misleading or omitting information
f. The proposed development does not propose to do any improvement works to the road condition, paths or crossings in the area.
5. Community Expectations - The community understands that increased housing is needed including for the aging population. However, the proposal provides only minimal increase in beds for aged care and focuses its development on larger / upper level apartments ( 2 and 3 bed) to achieve water views and higher profits. This proposed development is not about increasing housing stock but maximising profits with no regard for the community or its future residents either. Kingscliff has two large scale urban release areas planned including Kings Forest ( which is underway) and Gales. Unlike the Gold Coast, Kingscliff has the ability and planning in place to go ‘out’ not ‘up’ like other constrained suburbs.
Unfortunately, if approved in its current form, the neighbouring community will have significant resentment to its residents and workers in the facility ( as a result of the privacy and staff parking issues that will not doubt occur) and it this will cause a rift in the community for years to come.
I personally find it disappointing that an organisation like Uniting would drop to this level and propose such a large scale facility on this site without any regard for the impacts to the surrounding neighbours. I do not oppose aged care or seniors living and expected that this site would be expanded. However, the extent as to which the proposed development has attempted to incorrectly assess the development, impose significant impacts on the neighbours and show complete disregard to its impact on the local community is a real shame from an organisation such as Uniting.
Kingscliff has two huge planned land releases including Kings Forest and Gales land, which provide opportunities to build such a facility in a masterplanned community. If Uniting seek to pursue expansion on the site, the development should be in keeping with the surrounding area in size and scale as well as appropriately consider the comminty and end users of the precicnt.

My objections are centred around the follow concerns.
1. During the proposed 4 year construction in stages there will be a significant amount of traffic, trucks, earthmoving machinery, noise, vibration and dust which will impact on our neighbourhood and my personal life as I’m a shift worker.
2. The overall height of the proposed buildings will allow for occupiers to peer into a joining properties in our neighbourhood including my property.
3. Shading from the proposed buildings, landscaping/ trees will impact on our neighbourhood and our solar and winter sun.
4. Lighting needed to light up grounds and onsite roads has the potential to impact on our neighbourhood and my property leading to council complaints. ( current lighting arrangements on the site have been rectified on several occasion wit council intervention after complaints from our neighbours and our property).
5. The additional foot traffic, electric motorised scooters, walking frames and foot traffic using neighbouring footpaths where vehicles are moving in and out driveways with additional vehicles parked on our local streets poses a safety risk to all users.
6. Additional uncontrolled noise generated by delivery vehicles, fridge/ freezer trucks and garbage/ recycling trucks will have an impact on our neighbourhood and me personally as I’m currently a shift worker.
7. The potential for flooding to our neighbourhood and our property from any development on this site remains the unknown. What is known is water can be redirected not stopped. The Developer, Government and Local Council all have a part to play in any new developments of this size in the middle of existing residential housing.
8. Additional traffic on our neighbourhood streets will undoubtedly great a safety risk to pedestrians and road users both throughout the construction stages over the proposed build and while operating.

This project is out of keeping with the current surrounds and will overshadow the current residences / homes in the surrounding area. The scale of the project is a gross overdevelopment of this flood zone area. The roads do not currently cater for the existing increase in traffic in Kingscliff.
Kingscliff does not currently have infrastructure for the anticipated increase in population.

I strongly believe the proposal is over development of the subject site. It is in contradiction to the local planning guidelines and will not move to favourably benefit the affordable housing situation in the local area. Flood mitigation is also a major concern with the current proposal.

I object to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment SSD47105958
Building on floodplains/flood effected site
Filling of flood pains up to 3 metres in some parts
Future flood impacts
Increase in heights limits for Kingscliff - metres higher then Kingscliffs current building height levels
Traffic impacts
Scale of project is a gross overdevelopment in flood effected site

Kingscliff Uniting and Plus Architecture have indicated that their design has been shaped through extensive community consultation, with the aims of preserving the local character and seamlessly integrate increased housing density with the surrounding neighbourhood.
Kingscliff building height and built form character is defined by low rise buildings within both the business zones and medium density zones and low-density development within suburban precincts. The Kingscliff Locality Plan (KLP) has a height limit of 13.6m from the natural and existing surfaces. The current plans by Uniting have included buildings to a maximum height of 16.75m above ground level and have compared these heights in an R2 zone to those in the Beachfront development on Marine Parade that is zoned R3 Medium Density which is a misrepresentation of the surrounding neighbourhood and the built environment.
At more than twice the height of the surrounding residential buildings which are one and two storeys, existing neighbours will have significant overshadowing of their roofs, yards, living and bedroom spaces. This development is completely out of character with the surrounding homes and Kingscliff generally and in particular this neighbourhood of low-rise buildings.
Uniting have apparently developed a site at Yamba NSW which included a lower scale development with a mix of single storey villas and a limited number of apartment buildings. This would appear to be a much better fit and more compatible than the overdevelopment being proposed in the revised masterplan for Kingscliff.
After living through the 2022 flood, there are concerns of the impact of putting in additional fill to raise the site by more than three metres in some places on a flood prone site and the flow on effect to the surrounding neighbourhood that already get flooded streets during heavy rains. Whilst the current solution has excess runoff culminating on Gales Holdings Pty Ltd land, which saw extensive flooding in 2022, this land is also slated for development.
Whilst changes have been made to the original draft proposal, the size (including height) and scale/density of the proposed Uniting Kingscliff development is still an overdevelopment for this particular site and not in keeping with the surrounding low density residential environment.

I object to the development on the following grounds:

1) Inappropriate development due to being on a flood plain

2) Huge visual bulk and impingement on surrounding homes

3) Development needs to be 100% for aged care accommodation

4) Above 3 storey limits

5) Huge traffic impact on a quiet suburban neighborhood.

Thank you.

This proposal is a major over-development of the site, taking into account Kingscliff's character and amenities. The main concern is that it exceeds the current local council height limit. Does not conform to existing properties in the area. The proposed 4 storey buildings will overshadow nearby residential housing which are mainly either single or double storey and will reduce their amount of sun and light. Also their visual privacy will be greatly reduced as the 4 storey independent units overlook their properties.
There will be fill of up to 2.4m to be above flood level - is the proposed height from current ground level or the new level after fill? This doesn't seem to be clear in the proposal. I am concerned this is a flood risk to surrounding residences as there may not be adequate drainage provided to ensure neighbouring residents are not impacted in high rain/flood events.
The main access point will be Lorien Way - this is a local residential street, not a major thoroughfare. The increased traffic will cause congestion. Also, parking is already an issue in Kingscliff - with 199 extra independent units, there will be extra pressure to find parking in the retail precinct.
Also, will adequate parking spaces be provided on-site. Many senior couples own two cars, so 299 spots which includes visitor parking will likely not be sufficient.
This new nursing home and housing development is needed, but these issues need to be addressed before it can proceed.

Submission on SSD Application Number SSD – 47105958 Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment Tweed Shire Council

I wish to make a submission of support for the Uniting Kingscliff application SSD – 47105958 for seniors housing comprising of a residential care facility, independent living units and ancillary facilities.

When one reads the most current literature (facts and statistical information from relevant authorities) on aging and the problems concerning an ever-increasing aging population in Australia, it does give one enough reason to pause and consider where this is leading to, and what, in the longer term for Australia. It is a huge problem that cannot be ignored by society.

Yet there appears to be a large cohort of the general public oblivious to these facts. And maybe, ironically, it’s an age thing.

I am what’s referred to as a “Baby Boomer” (apparently, I need to be labelled) which has some dreadful connotations to that label these days. I have had first-hand experience to ageism, spoken to by others in a dreadful manner because I am seen as “old” and to my way of thinking worst of all “seen by not being seen at all” due to my aging state.

There has been (and are) many comments made by people on social media about this application. There’s nothing new about that. That’s how it is these days. Unfortunately, though, the mis-information and downright dis-information is at times hysterical on one hand and downright damaging to those older folk who may well be genuinely concerned who live around the area concerned with this application.

I would like to commend the professionalism of staff from Uniting and consultants/planners etc. contracted to undertake this project with Uniting, since first mooted. I have been accorded, respect, answers to my questions, great scope to put forward my views and acknowledgement of my many years of living in Kingscliff and my lived experience here and the Tweed Shire generally.

Finally, I would like to address those that may make submissions knocking the height limits, flooding, the area the application sits in (to residential areas surrounding it) the proponents desire to redevelop, how the Kingscliff Locality Plan is being trashed, the entire proposal being a “gross over-development of the site”, how greed is the motive of Uniting, that “old people don’t need three-bedroom two-bathroom units” how “cashed up” metropolitan retirees are going to descend upon Kingscliff and somehow destroy the very fabric, character and amenity of Kingscliff in doing so!

Don’t get me wrong the general populace can hate/loathe whatever they want to hate/loathe. However, that hate/loathing in a planning sense should be based on “understanding something” about how the bureaucracy and government works across the Westminster System. Harsh? Maybe. However, when one reads what is written on social media one is left to wonder.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the “Not In My Back Yard” element that resides in Kingscliff – as it does everywhere one goes. People who sometimes fit the above criteria with lack of knowledge surrounding how the various levels of the planning system work, let alone government/bureaucracy. And there’s no denying that the planning system is complex. In fact, some members of the general public rely on that fact to bamboozle other members of the general public.

Over the years life has taught me that some people (who have zero understanding of the history of a place let alone the planning/zonings of a place) move into a village/town and decide that they have found paradise. Fair enough. However, that leads some into the distorted belief that because they are in paradise now ‘nothing can change’ which is far from the truth/reality.

It would appear that the executive of the Kingscliff Ratepayer and Progress Association and the swollen ranks of the general members (read new members) now fit the ‘NIMBY’ descriptor. This ‘new membership’ being Lorien Way, Beach Street, Dune Court etc. residents against the proposed redevelopment by Uniting. Not dissimilar to the now long gone ‘new membership’ from the Save our Red Soils Hospital Redevelopment and Elrond Drive Pods (provided for local Tweed residents displaced from the 2022 flood event) naysayers.

But they will all accept the increase in net worth of their private properties, brought on by the proposal when redeveloped - in whatever form.

With all of the above now said I need to acknowledge the 13.6 metre height limit (and in doing so acknowledge the NSW Government Architect Report to Tweed Shire Council Circa 2005 on built form heights on Marine Parade Kingscliff at 13.6 metres) proposed fill, my one concern with an element of the colour palette for the built form, and, that I am not technically trained to adjudicate any of the technical reports supplied. However, I do know something about how this all works.

Uniting have had the zoning option of going to 13.6 metres for many, many years. Because they are proposing to redevelop the entire site (bar the church and TSC easement/sewer infrastructure) they have to legally take into consideration new planning rules. No avoiding that fact. No avoiding climate change planning either. No avoiding minimizing the affect a redevelopment will have on the neighbourhood, flood and stormwater matters, traffic management, air flow, solar access, noise, vibration, fill, privacy, vegetation, security, air flow between buildings, complaints handling, public transport, odour control, building workers/tradies and where they park, utilities, private and staff parking, deliveries, inspections etc. the list is a mile long before occupation certificate are issued.

I don’t have a problem with the 13.6 metre heights nor the 4th level component which has basically been available since the 2004/2005 Draft Standard Template became a reality in NSW. (Take a look at Marine Parade currently. Look at 4, 6 and 20 Pearl Street equivalent to 4 levels. Tina's Style Centre corner of 8 Seaview and Sutherland St Kingscliff housed in a part 4 level commercial/apartments building. The "Kingsway" building in the 'S bends' 1 Kingscliff St equivalent to 4 levels (opposite Dune Court). No one screams over the fact that they are higher than what they believe is "high rise" in Kingscliff.)

I believe we are better to go back and scar what we have already scarred rather than continually eat into new greenfield spaces. I realise this proposal would come as a discomfort to some new residents especially Dune Court area – after all none of that area existed until recently, (but I doubt they minded having that land filled to build their homes now causing water to spill over onto and into the old detention pond area of Uniting’s property. I doubt some even know that the developer of Drift Court had to fill the area for their shiny new homes to be built. (I remember when it was the old RSL Hall land, not to mention the dumping ground for blighters who thought dumping asbestos was the go.)

The setbacks are far greater than originally drafted for initial consultation, and that was needed to be fair, for air flow and solar access. Air flow is necessary everywhere as one moves further away from any prevailing cooler summer breezes and solar access especially in winter and grey days for light to penetrate buildings. Privacy matters can be addressed by articulation of buildings, thoughtful screening attached to windows and vegetation plantings.

It is obvious that some have concerns about the fill proposed in various levels across the site. Unfortunately, most don't appreciate what has to be undertaken when one lives on what is essentially hills and valleys as we do here in the Tweed Shire. An awful lot of us don't necessarily understand floodplains and rain events, having a short river such as the Tweed River (but a powerful river system at that) and flood modelling and return events. Throw in climate change and that complicates any planning system further. Let's not even mention compaction or levelling of fill and freeboards in preparation for climate change.
What we did yesterday in planning cannot be done once we know more and better.

With regard to the colour palette as mentioned above (and I genuinely appreciate why that colour was chosen and building material) however, I would like to just say that I struggled with the darker colour up the top of the buildings. Darker colours in summer store heat and that isn't mitigating or adapting to or for climate change in my view. Fine in winter for sure, releases heat and helps heat loss in the built form. But it will add to fuel consumption to cool in summer and warmer days/nights as energy is released from the built form.

Change is never easy. And Uniting has certainly come up against stiff opposition to their proposal. Whatever form the redevelopment finally takes it will mean change. Some will never accept the final decision. Others over time will. And some don't know what is even proposed by Uniting. That's life.
Good planning and outcomes should be
merit based, provide adaptation and mitigation measures for climate change and always looking to the future generations to follow us.

RE Uniting Aged Care Redevelopment Kingscliff
I object to this proposed project.
The reasons for this include
1. The height of the development is 16.75m above ground level. Kingscliff’s current height limit is 13.6m. This is over 3 meters higher than the current town plan. This is unfair to those who have built or bought into the area based on the current height limits. It will also require fill to raise the site levels to make the base of the development structurally sound. This will require more than 3 meters of fill in some areas. The building would be completely out of character with the surrounding homes in the area due to both it’s height and size.
2. The height of the building will further impact on residents’ views of Mt Warning and western sunsets that many love viewing in the afternoon. It is why many live in the area.
3. This development is on a flood plain. To raise the flood plain will further exacerbate the flood issues of the area. It does not take a lot of water for flooding and water pooling in the area to occur and it will occur more frequently by removing the natural causeway. This will impact current residents whose home will flood and who struggle to get insurance in the area because of flood risks. The flood plains are also natural and local fauna and flora need these areas for their survival. We have bush and endangered stone curlews in the area that may be impacted from loss of this flood plain. Constant heavy traffic will impact on the curlews as they cross Marine Pde and trucks will not be able to stop for them. Heavy civilian traffic will also occur with locals trying to avoid Beach Street. Curlews are list as endangered and are promoted along Marine Pde by the local council and with no consideration of their homes will not be promoting environmental commitments to their future.
4. The construction will cause immense traffic issues to the area. Heavy vehicles will be utilizing suburban streets, damaging the infrastructure and causing damage to local cars and making it difficult for pedestrians to cross a busy road. If the development were to be completed there would be immense pressure on local roads with potentially hundreds of vehicles coming and going from the complex daily from workers, residents and visitors. The local roads were not designed for this much traffic and will cause major problems in the narrow streets around the complex.
5. The development proposal states that it will be providing more homes for seniors. There will only be 8 more beds for those in care. With the difficulties this development will bring, it does not seem feasible to destroy an area for only eight more beds. With many of the units being three bedrooms, most seniors would not need that many rooms. The seniors who are downsizing, will have more bedrooms than those currently living in units who are raising families in the area. Instead of care facilities, it appears to be a form of expensive overdeveloped holiday homes owned by seniors. This again does not co-exist with the character of the area.

- Scale, height and size of project will have a dramatic negative effect on local and my personal amenity. Height of development grossly towers over current homes, with Lorien Way consisting of single and a few double storey homes.
The projected build of 4 storeys plus utilities on roof, being 16.75 metre structure built on an EXTRA 3.6 metre fill, effectively 20.35 metres tall, towering over the current homes single and 2 level homes. This will effectively block daylight from entering our home, decrease privacy, and be a large eyesore.
This height will allow residents to view directly into our home.

- Medium density accommodation such as this development is not in the Tweed Shire Development Strategy and Character Statement for North Kingscliff (this developments location) due to it being in an existing residential area. Medium density is only proposed for ‘greenfield’ developments, NOT existing residential areas where this development is proposed. This is misrepresented in the applicant’s submission.

- Increased traffic in a residential area. Substantial increase in population will increase traffic in an already congested roadway. Lorien Way is an already narrow thoroughfare, being the only access road for multiple cul de sacs. Traffic already has to stop to allow cars to travel in both directions, will cars parked on both sides of the road. Multiple buses an hour cross through this street, making it unsafe to have cars driving in both directions.

- Given that there are projected to be over 400 workers, WITHOUT adequate parking provision, these workers will park on all surrounding residential streets, and further add to this problem.

- Building time is far too prolonged. Construction is proposed for 4 years, drawing out construction noise for an extremely excessive period of time. This will impact negatively on health and quality of life. As an Emergnecy Department nurse working night shifts, FOUR YEARS worth of daytime construction noise is far too long to impact on sleep. This will largely impact on quality of sleep, and hence ability to provide care to patients within the emergency department

- Flood impact is a very significant concern. The 2022 flood had water higher than knee deep through Lorien Way, being only approximately 150mm from entering my home. This massive development on this flood prone area will increase water run-off thereby over running the current drainage system with the potential to cause flooding to all the homes in the area.

- The negative impacts of this development far outweigh any benefits. There is a very limited increase in aged care beds. With the current facility having 120 beds, which will be demolished, there is an increase of ONLY 8 aged care beds to 128. As a nurse, I more than most see the need for an improvement in aged care, however this is definitely not a positive contribution.

- Projected cost of construction demonstrates the buying cost of accommodation units will be exceedingly high, meaning local aging residents will not be able to afford to purchase into the development.

- A precedent will be set for massive overdevelopment in the Kingscliff village, destroying what people find attractive about Kingscliff.

Slightly updated Objection letter attached

1. This isn't a residential redevelopment; it is a commercial redevelopment such as a Hotel/Motel. The reasons for saying this is the property will always remain with one owner, no residents will be able to buy their property, they will be able to take out a long-term lease and utilize the facilities for a predetermined cost.
2. The redevelopment will overcrowd the current residential pattern of this part of Kingscliff, the proposed buildings and large size of the development will be evident from all the other developments and properties in Kingscliff.
3. Although the buildings will be offset to 9 metres from neighbouring residences, the proposed height will still mean properties with courtyards or backyards adjoining will have shadows limiting their exposure to the sun until at least 10.30am, whereas now they enjoy sun from 6.30am (winter solstice). This has a major effect on gardens and especially vegetable gardens. Heating costs will rise significantly. This may also affect the mental health of the residence in these properties given the reduced of sunlight light to the property.
4. For proposed buildings to be 4 and 5 stories high in a strictly residential area will not be in keeping with the current skyline, to most it will stand out like a sore thumb. This will also affect dramatically the privacy of the adjoining properties.
5. With the buildings being offset by 9 metres, they propose building a ring road around the perimeter which will have substantial traffic accessing the roads, which will again impinge on residents current living habits, the noise from cars, trucks, motorbikes etc will force them to close their doors and only live inside. This is after the noise, dust and traffic created by the construction of the proposed redevelopment.
6. While we appreciate there is an important need for such a facility as this, it is suggested this proposed redevelopment would be better suited to being moved to a vacant plot of land, suitable in size, somewhere near the new Tweed Hospital. Infrastructure is already in place and it would have little to no impact on local residents, while still providing ready access to other frequented facilities (clubs, restaurants, shops, dentists and doctors etc) .
7. To state there will be minimal increase in traffic, in Kingscliff St, Beach St and. Lorien Way is a total fabrication of the truth. Of the 3 streets Kingscliff St is already very busy with around 500 cars a day using it, which will increase dramatically and Lorien Way would have a high increase of traffic especially given the proposal has a proposed entrance/exit into Lorien Way, and any substantial increase to these streets would impact significantly on the residents. Given the number of pot holes and the condition of Kingscliff St currently there will need to be improvements and ongoing maintenance to these streets at the council’s expense. The adjoining roads of Beach St and Lorien Way will also need more maintenance and upkeep work due to the large size of this proposed development (a substantial increase in residences in a condensed area)
8. Please let common sense prevail and move this proposal to a much more suited location or make ALL of the buildings single level and NOT 2, 3 or 4 stories (like they currently are)

. The bulk of the development is totally excessive relative to the site area.
. The height of the buildings exceeds the height which Kingscliff residents have fought for over many years.
. The redevelopment is is an impost on the neighboring properties in terms of privacy and overshadowing.
. The proposal has caused much anguish among the adjoining property owners loss of value being one issue.
. Traffic generated by the redevelopment will degrade the quiet neighborhood.

1. lack of infrastructure.Lorien Way and Beach Street and Kingscliff St are not equipped to take on extra traffic on these residental roads. The narrow Beach St isn't wide enough already with parked cars on either side, Buses every 30 minutes to the new hospital, older people driving and locals and tradies going way to fast. Its dangerous. And the pods and hospital short-cutting traffic is making it too busy already.
2. If built there needs to be a stop sign or round -a -bout coming onto Lorien Way as I am concerned about older people, all the staff workers. Especially the independent living people with different (other than Uniting) aged care, disability providers, nurses, doctors, podiatrist, cleaners, cooks, social and family and friends. Uniting is underestimating the amount of traffic in and out.
3.Inappropriately too big a development for the residential area, as it doesn't blend in with the area that exists. 4 storey buildings too high, overlooking residents, blocking their sunlight and privacy.
4. Yes high care needs updating and should be made bigger with expanding of the older population in the area, however 2-3 bedroom luxury apartments near the beach is just an excuse to build these under the guise of health.While Single accommodation is needed in the area.
5. Squashing 120 high care and 199 apartments = 319 living places/ plus their partners or carers or family, equals about 400-500 people squeezed into this flood zoned area and their cars. It will be an overpopulation to our tiny suburb.
6. my townhouse just up the road and is considered to be in a flood zone so they would be too.My insurance has trippled.
7. what happens when/if they loose electricity to get older/alzheimers/ disabled/sick people out of their place with no lift working or flooding occurs or fire. Cars wont be able to get out of the garage and people/cars cant get into Kingscliff if flooding.
6. Kingscliff, a tiny town, is already too busy with traffic, where do we park locally to shop at Woolworths, banking ,chemist, going for coffee or lunches or to the creek, post office and on weekends. No parking protection for locals. Independent living residents generally still drive a car.
7.what about the tiny drains outlet? Drains overflowed in last few floods. It often rains heavily around here in the Northern Rivers.
Who is going to compensate us if we get flooded?
8. and what about the 4 odd years of noise, building noise, pounding to prepare land, dust, trucks filling in the land, going in and out of the complex into residental tiny narrow streets. Who is going to pay for the road repairs? Me with my rates?
9. ambulence sirens
10. There is no concern for the neighbours and neigherhood in the building this inappropriate complex. It should be not squashed into this area, but onto an already cleared area not impacting people who live around here. Suddenly a huge complex in the middle of Residental Kingscliff.
11. Kingscliff is very expensive to live in so where will the staff live. Hospital staff are looking for accommodation.
11. A New development Drift Court next to Uniting got flooded.
12. Having so many older people driving around the area will be dangerous as they could have health issues or dementia.