Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment

I am writing to lodge an objection to SSD-47105958 based on the following points.
1- Will go over the Max height of 13.6 metros in Kingscliff NSW.
2-It will NOT fit in the local landscape.
3-The land is low lying and flood prone. Refer 2022 FLOODS.
4-Huge and fill will be required - will destabize the land.'
5- All trucks will use Kingscliff st for the next 4 years.
6- Will create lots of Dust and Noise.
7- Many homes will lose sunshine.
8-$ 233 million to only get 8 extra beds is unreasonable exercise.
9-Located at a major round about. Entrance is DANGEROUS.
10- Road is BAD CONDITION as Tweed council has about 10Plus potholes there already. They rarely get fixed.
11-Tweed council do NOT fix Potholes.
12- Road dust is bad for the sick.
13-in this area we have accepted the new Kingscliff Hospital. We do not need this other development. Four years to get 8 extra BEDS.
14-This a major OVER DEVELOPMENT that is NOT NEEDED.
15-Behind Kingscliff Street is a huge amount of land. its needs major increase in soil level and has never preceded goes all the way to behind Woolworths complex. Tweed council refuse the development. This project should also be refused as in time of rain there will be additional flooding in the area.
16-Originaaly they wanted 5 stories. Now its 4 story. Unacceptable to the citizens of Kingscliff.
17 - Kingscliff is small old suburb. No one wants the look of the suburb identy to change
18- This will set a BAD Precedent for Kingscliff. We do not want that or our suburb to be badly affected.
19- If 4 story is granted what is to stop developers wanting 4 story as well.
20- The entrance is in a really BAD and DANGEROUS Position.
21- Buses have to drove over the roundabout too turn right. Not around the roundabout but drive directly over it.
22-As stated, this gross over development will ADD to the FLOOF PRONE AREA.
Thank you for stating the case AGAIONST this over Development in Kingscliff.

I object to the development of 199 independent living units on the basis that this does not address the need for more residential aged care places in the Tweed Shire.
I object to the development on the basis that the length of the proposed works and the number of additional people and vehicles that will be onsite and around the site for this period of time will erode the living conditions of local residents.
I object to the development on the basis that it does not fit within the current site, which is largely low to medium density residential buildings.
I object to this development on the basis that it will subject surrounding residencies to a heightened risk of destructive flooding.
Kingscliff residents do not want a development of this size in a residential area. The site is not sufficiently capable of managing increased traffic levels. It does not have ready access to appropriate public transport.

The 4 story high building will block our morning sun, causing too much shade for a low density residential area, the traffic will be too much for the already busy street and the flooding that occured in 2022 in our streets will be worse in the next floods! This development does not make sense when there is minimal increase in bed numbers! Make a smarter plan and then put that to the community first.

I live on Beach Street where it intersects with Lorian way.
Every day there is nearly 3 accidents a day at this intersection due to the heavy congestion with traffic.
Cars turning out of Lorian way onto beach street after getting impatient on waiting for the traffic on Beach street.
The proposed development has an entrance on Lorian way. There is no way Lorian way in this area can cope with the traffic that will be coming from the development and occupancy of the proposed residence.
This area is NOT suitable in anyway for this large proposal and does not fit in or is conducive with the community or current buildings.
It’s a monstrosity that would just destroy the look of our beautiful little town and so distasteful. 2 story villas yes. Not this in an already built up area.
This needs to be built on new development land and not shoved/crammed into a his small pocket of land that can already not handle the traffic congestion or lack of parking which is impossible for current local residents.

I object to this project. Please find the details of my objection in the attached document
Thank you
Ann Newton

Please refer to attached submission

I object to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD-47105958), for the below reasons:
• The proposal says the address is 24A Kingscliff St but the address is actually 27-33 Lorien Way based on drawings and impressions. The Lorien Way side of the development is in a 9m height zone but buildings A, B, C & RAC all front the Lorien side and are up to 16.75m high
• The size & scale of development as currently proposed is completely out of character with the surrounding homes and Kingscliff generally
• At 16.75m, the buildings max height is way too high compared to the surrounding houses. The surrounding houses (and Kingscliff generally) are one storey houses. This development will overlook all houses surrounding it.
• This site is Flood affected and the fill of up to 3.5mtrs will cause flooding to areas that have previously never been affected by flood. Uniting’s attitude to flood impact during the consultations was that they didn’t care what water did once it left their site, that was Council’s problem.
• There will be major traffic impacts on the surrounding roads and backstreets whereby parking is already limited. These are quiet, residential streets where children play, ride bikes and walk dogs.
• This development is more like a luxury housing development under the guise of “seniors housing”
• The size of the buildings in the development will have very negative impacts on the amenity and liveability for surrounding residents.

I object to Uniting’s proposed development of the Kingscliff site for the following reasons:
It does not comply with our height restrictions. These are in place for many reasons including the amenity of our small town and we don’t want a giant complex of buildings plonked in the middle of our township. It would literally overshadow neighbouring properties and is just not needed. The site could be developed within our height restrictions and still make significant profits. The extra height is just pure greed on behalf of the developers.
The scale of the proposed development for this site is just – again- greedy. The site does not offer the kind of access to a main road that would suit a development of this scale. If you want to build something of this scale, pick a greenfield site with main road access.
The site floods. You know this. It’s literally a flood plain. If you build the site up by adding fill, you will cause all the properties around it to flood instead.
Eight extra licenced aged care beds does not justify a development of this scale and size, and does not justify a ‘state significant’ development status. You can’t even staff the registered beds you’ve got now.
The traffic, noise, population growth and concreting/development of our flood plain are not justified. We need growth in aged care but this site is just not the right place for it. Why not just add one level to your existing footprint and double your space?

I object to this project. My reasons for this objection are detailed in the attached document.
Thank you
Peter Newton

I live next door and do not want this project to go ahead. We live in a quiet peaceful environment and I am very worried that this development will spoilt our peace and quiet. We do not want more development in our suburb as Kingscliff is a peaceful place. I was born in murwillumbah and am a local. I do not want to see Kingscliff spoilt and become like a city, like the Gold Coast. It would be such a shame. My son is only 7, we have a dog and a quiet backyard currently. If this project was to go ahead, the high rise would look straight into our backyard and spoil our privacy. Please respect the locals and do not go ahead with this project. Thank you, kind regards Carmen.

Objection to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD-47105958)
My concerns with formulating my objection are as follows
Serious overshadowing concerns Four storey buildings cast massive shadows
over properties. It is unfair for an adjoining property to lose any sunlight at all due to
a greedy developer, even if the developer is a church.
Cross sections need to be supplied to the DA. It is such important detail that is
missing from the documentation. Many owners do not know at what time that if the
project went ahead, what time they will lose sun. Are they in darkness all morning or
all afternoon or in the morning what time will they get sun into their lounge room or of
an afternoon when will they get sun back. This is important detail that is missing and
has to be included.
Exceeding building height limit- This is extracted from the Kingscliff Planning
guidelines in the locality plan. It was formed to limit over development in residential
areas, such as this. It controls greedy overdevelopment of sites such as this one.
The height limit is set at 13.6m from Natural Ground Level and this development
exceeds this.
No fencing detail for what type of fencing Uniting intend in having in their
development. It should be of a material that is solid and noise retarding, and just like
what they use in the roads these days, concrete. That way the existing neighbours
will be reassured that any ground noise will be minimised. We also wish to say that
there is no detail on this at all
Site to be filled – of course Uniting will fill the site but to what level? If they fill the
site it affects shadow diagrams and also overshadowing. Is that why Uniting has only
given vague shadow diagrams and no cross sections. Is it all a plot for them to build
their building and then only later are the owners cornered in accepting the building in
its current state or form. That’s unfair

Artist Impressions buildings you can’t even see. The one of 37 Drift Ct the Building
C is hidden behind the rear of the verandah patio, and there is another view of that
same building and in the DA it is not shown as a 4 storey building but instead a 3
storey building as the photo editor has simply cropped the top off.

The bulk and scale of the buildings is replaced lack of sunlight and replaced by
shade, loss of aspect. Loss of quality. Grass replaced by dirt, magnificent sunsets
replaced by shade and once cared for gardens lost to concrete. We try not to
imagine it but it very might happen in reality if Uniting gets their way.
I do not accept this development whatsoever in its current form because of the bulk
and scale of the buildings are too big for this area; 4 storeys way too big and will impact other existing prperties too much.

Concerns Regarding the Use of Lorien Way as Main Entrance
Dear Council/Planning Committee,

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed expansion of the aged care facility and the planned use of Lorien Way as the new main entrance. While I understand the need for the facility's growth and support its mission to provide quality care for our elderly population, I believe that using Lorien Way as the primary access point will have significant negative impacts on the community, including traffic congestion and property value depreciation.

Traffic Congestion
Inadequate Infrastructure

Road Capacity: Lorien Way is a narrow residential street not designed to handle high volumes of traffic. The current road infrastructure is inadequate to support the increased flow that would result from the facility’s expansion.
Safety Concerns: Increased traffic on a street not built for heavy use poses safety risks for residents, particularly children and elderly pedestrians. The likelihood of accidents and traffic-related incidents would rise significantly.
Impact on Residents

Noise and Pollution: The increased traffic will lead to higher noise levels and pollution, disrupting the quiet and peaceful nature of our neighbourhood. This will adversely affect the quality of life for residents on Lorien Way.
Parking Issues: The surge in vehicles might result in parking shortages, further complicating daily life for residents. Visitors and staff of the aged care facility may park on residential streets, causing inconvenience.

Property Value Depreciation
Increased Traffic Flow:

Desirability of Location: Residential streets becoming major thoroughfares typically see a decline in property desirability. Potential buyers are often deterred by high traffic volumes and associated disturbances, leading to reduced property values.
Noise and Safety: Persistent noise and safety concerns directly impact the appeal of a residential area. Properties on busy streets are generally valued lower than those in quieter, safer locations.
Aesthetic and Environmental Impact

Neighborhood Character: The transformation of Lorien Way into a busy entrance for a large facility changes the character of the neighborhood. This alteration can make the area less attractive to prospective buyers looking for a serene residential environment.
Environmental Degradation: Increased vehicle emissions and potential littering can degrade the local environment, making the area less appealing and further driving down property values.
Suggested Alternatives
Alternative Access Points

Main Roads: Explore the use of existing main roads or thoroughfares that are better equipped to handle increased traffic volumes without disrupting residential areas.
New Infrastructure: Consider constructing a new access road specifically designed to accommodate the facility’s needs, thus avoiding the use of Lorien Way altogether.
Traffic Mitigation Measures

Traffic Calming: If Lorien Way must be used, implement traffic calming measures such as speed bumps, signage, and designated crossing points to enhance safety and reduce the impact on residents.
Restricted Access: Limit the times during which the main entrance can be used to avoid peak residential traffic hours, minimizing disruption.
Conclusion
While the expansion of the aged care facility is an important community development, it is crucial to balance this with the well-being and interests of Lorien Way residents. I urge the council to reconsider the use of Lorien Way as the main entrance and explore alternative solutions that mitigate traffic congestion and preserve property values. Addressing these concerns will ensure that both the facility and the community can thrive harmoniously.

Thank you for considering my concerns.

See attached document

Objection to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD-47105958)
My concerns with formulating my objection are as follows

Serious overshadowing concerns I would hate if I were a north facing property owner when suddenly, a greedy church can propose buildings which may be double or triple the size of current properties not only towering above them but also plunges the current properties into shade. Shame on you Uniting

Exceeding building limit height of 13.6m. Building heights are set by council and in this case with a four-storey building the heights of the buildings are greater than this for the building height is taken from filled height. There are no properties in this area of greater than 13.6m so why should this be allowed? Don’t do it Uniting you will wreck Kingscliff’s character

Dementure ward lacks places for residents to go. There is only a lounge room, dining room, and balcony. No yard or gardens.


Site to be filled – or is it not? Why are the cross sections between Drift Ct and Beach Street shown to be level when No6 Beach Street is 2.8m and Drift Ct 3.6m to the backyard. Something is not right, and I think Uniting are pulling the proverbial wool over our eyes


The overall bulk and density of the buildings on this site is well above that of a normal developer. In this development they have pushed for the four storeys, then coming to grief with all the extra car parks whilst then short falling their landscaping percentages by having to mound dirt on top of car park basements and we all know that massive trees that are grown with little formation of roots will end with them falling over. Well in this case the roots can’t form for there is concrete below it. Is the landscape design plan a plot to push the DA through then when the trees can’t grow, they just remove them?

Privacy is not managed at all well because the buildings are simply too tall. They push the planning envelope and there area at least another two levels and sometimes for many properties three levels higher than existing buildings. For those unlucky residents that may be backing an apartment there may be 8 to 12 apartments that are able to directly look into their homes


Landscape plan also shows lots of mounding of dirt on top of a basement carpark for the purpose of growing trees. Problem is that if a mound is up to 1200mm high even a small child could stand on one of these mounds and peer into other neighbours’ yards.

Flooding is a massive concern with the rainwater runoff from 7 massive buildings and the surface water running off site and onto the stormwater or street drains when the retention pits are full. This is further made worse once Uniting fills the site. If it is filled to above every neighbour then every neighbour will be affected, except Uniting for they have made themselves flood-proof .
Conclusion
I object to this development because its just way too big and it will impact on current residents too much through all the above reasons. Four storeys is proposed where there are only either one or two storey residences only in this quiet residential area of Kingscliff

The current facility is old & in desperate need for an upgrade, the population is aging, and our elders deserve a home that is fit for purpose.

I object to overuse of the site and the disruption to the local residents. In particular the proposal contains building heights greater than the current zoning.

Further to the above noted SSD application, I would hereby like to formally submit my public submission and objection to the proposal as submitted. My submission is my assessment and review of the application and documentation and reports made publicly available on the NSW planning portal. My assessment outlines my concerns with the proposal based on my knowledge of the requirements and guidelines in which the proposal has been based as well as the proposal in its surrounding context and public domain.

I am a local resident and in close proximity to the proposed development. We will be both directly and indirectly impacted by this proposal and I would like to raise the following key points of concern.

1. Bulk, scale and height of the development proposal.
2. Density and use of 4-storey-built form in this location
3. Privacy Impacts of the proposal
4. Solar impacts and shading
5. Traffic, Flood, Noise & Light Pollution Implications
Further justifcation of my objection can be found in the associated attachment to this submission.

Objection to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD-47105958)

My objection are as follows:

a) The bulk and scale of the buildings is unprecedented. Its just too big for this area

b) No central gardens, what you would expect with a development such as this however gardens have been pushed to the perimeter of the site for too many carparks underneath does not allow for deep soil zones

c) Flooding is a very big concern for if this site is developed Uniting will no doubt fill the site and push all their stormwater out into the streets of surrounding neighbours

d) Overshadowing for where people live from Uniting buildings, and properties will have extensive loss of sunlight throughout the day and no detail has been provided on this at all. Shadow diagrams should be to scale and detailed, Uniting DA is poorly represented

e) Exceeding building height limit- This is extracted from the Kingscliff Planning guidelines in the locality plan. It was formed to limit over development in residential areas, such as this, the height limit is set at 13.6m from Natural Ground Level. This development they are filling first and then wanting the 13.6m from the new level.

f) Site to be filled – of course Uniting will fill the site but to what level? If they fill the site, it affects shadow diagrams and overshadowing. Maybe that’s the reason why Uniting has only given vague shadow diagrams and no cross sections. Is it all a plot for them to build their building and then only later are the owners cornered in accepting the building in its current state or form. That’s unfair

g) Artist Impressions of properties are false as they hide them behind trees. The one of Kingscliff Street shows only one floor of a 4-storey building the rest hidden behind a tree, 16 Beach Street outside shows one floor the rest hidden behind the building and trees, Beach Lane hidden behind a building and trees, Lorien Way hidden behind trees. There is not a good view of the buildings. What’s Uniting hiding? Do they know that 4 storey buildings and a one and two storey build area wont mix. Of course they do.

h) Privacy is lost for many current owners for if the proposed buildings are built there are multiple owners looking down into people’s yards.

i) Dementure floor has no gardens for residents. Just one floor in building no access onto gardens, vital for dementure patients. Just one balcony in sun only of a morning

j) Underground car park facilities show one car park per unit and some and some have cages. That’s not enough. Every residential basement car park should have two car parks and at least a decent lockable storage cage.
The site location is just too small for this type of large scale building. Uniting needs to put this type of building somewhere else or if they wish to put this project in this location it has to be less apartments and either one or two levels, and not four.


Yours faithfully


Christie Graae

I object to the Uniting Kingscliff Development:
*is too BIG & out of character with surrounding residential homes & Kingscliff generally.
*the bulk & scale is a gross overdevelopment of this FLOOD affected site
*as a past president of KRAPA during the early 1900s I've fought all my time to keep building heights to 13.6m, if you insist building high rise to 16.75m then go somewhere else
*I've lived here since 1984 , and traffic is now a major issue for our small village, your overdevelopment of luxury units will simply add to traffic congestion on the small adjoining roads & streets
* if you want to be part of our community, listen to us, walk with us and don't impose yourselves on us uninvited!

I reside at 2/14 Beach Street Kingscliff, together with my partner and our two year old daughter. We are expecting a newborn later in the year. Our property shares a boundary with the proposed development, and the scale and construction of the redevelopment will have a detrimental and adverse impact on our lives, not to mention the local community.

The bulk and scale of the proposed Uniting Kingscliff redevelopment is both intrusive and a gross overdevelopment of what is a flood affected site. The proposed redevelopment includes additional fill raising the site by more than 3 metres in some places, exacerbating the flood risk to this site. In the 2022 floods, the flood waters came right up to this property's front door, and entered into the garage. Our neighbour at 6 Beach Street was also severely impacted, with part of his property and his shed under water. The proposed redevelopments will lead to even worse flooding at our home, and we are terrified by the potential impact in this regard. We cannot afford to relocate.

The Beach Street area in which we live is a wonderful low rise built environment, and the current Uniting buildings that border our property do not currently affect our privacy. The buildings included in the proposal (to a maximum height of 16.75 metres above ground) are far beyond the current building height of 13.6 metres in Kingscliff, and the proposed buildings to be constructed right on our property's border at that height will completely destroy our privacy, towering above and overshadowing our home. Our neighbour at 6 Beach Street has resided in his home for 50 years, and is one of the first buildings originating in the area. He will now have two gigantic buildings looking in on his property, losing the very privacy he has rightfully enjoyed for nearly 50 years. The buildings will completely overlook his outdoor area and into his living spaces and bedrooms, in effect overshadowing his property and ours. It is shameful that a family who have lived at 6 Beach Street for nearly 50 years will now, at the very time they should be allowed to enjoy the relaxing comfort and privacy fruits of their labour, no longer be able to do so.

We currently use Beach Street street parking. It is a busy enough thoroughfare, and spaces spare. With two small children, it is imperative that any street parking is close to our home. The new redevelopment, with construction vehicles and workers vehicles, threatens to take all parking away from us. The traffic and congestion will be even worse.

My partner and I both work from home full time. We will be unable to do so if the redevelopment occurs due to construction noise. The breeze that we currently get throughout our property will also no longer be possible, as all doors and windows will need to be shut to protect from the dust and debris caused by the construction. Our two small children, one of whom suffers from Asthma and has an eye condition requiring protective glasses, will no longer be able to play outside.

The size and scale of the redevelopment, which only caters for an additional 8 residential aged care spaces, cannot be justified. It is completely out of character with this wonderful Kingscliff suburb. While there may be a need for redevelopment of the site to cater for the ageing population, the proposed development in its current form does not meet the needs of those who already reside in the suburb, and their access to the character, fabric, amenities and liveability of the area. Surely this can changed to ensure the area is not irrevocably altered for good.

Uniting's community consultation process was nothing more than lip service, given what it is now proposed. This only reinforces what we have always feared, that this is a luxury apartment development under the guise of aged care. This is evidenced by the fact some buildings extend more than 3 metres beyond Kingscliff's current building height.