Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment

I object to the proposed Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSd-47105958) on the basis that it is a gross overdevelopment of flood affected land that it;
- is not in keeping with the character of the residential area impacted
- significantly exceeds the strictly imposed height limits for the area
- would significantly increase the traffic within an already busy thoroughfare through the additional residences and servicing vehicles
- will have a major impact on outlook for existing properties, a major asset of the area, which will decrease livability and negatively impact property values without any consideration to compensation.
- will cause flood water normally captured within the flood plain and marshlands to impact other low lying areas within the township including the commercial shopping centre which backs onto the same marshlands
- the development is not aligned with the principles of providing affordable living for the aged.

My main objection is this looks like a cash grab for Uniting at the expense of the Kingscliff township and its residents. The independent living units aren’t for the aged, being mainly two or three bedroom units, but rather cashed up retirees doing a seachange. The minimal number of incremental care beds versus currently offered being only 8 reinforces this position. Kingscliff has done its share of taking on additional infrastructure pressure via the new hospital.
I hope that this and the many other submissions receive appropriate consideration.

Please feel free to contact me if required.
Regards
Tom and Janette Doolan

I agree that this is way over the top mega development...not in tune with Kingscliff at all. Also agree that it should be downsized similar to Yamba development. Currently goes against local community height limits...and no provision is being made for future flooding ie where will the water go if all that land is filled???? Also local infrastructure... roads.. is inadequate to cope with that increased volume. As well, will not provide much needed affordable housing for locals. Only for the RICH!!

Please see my attached submission dated 4th June 2024

If you in fill the land the flood water will impact other areas, the local roads will not be able to handle the extra traffic.
We need more aged care beds not housing for rich retirees.

I object to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD-47105958) due to the significant negative impact on the area. Issues that are being overlooked or ignored are:
* flood impact which would bring significant harm to the surrounding area and existing residences,
* building height inconsistent with current building heights and which where located would be unsightly, overcrowded and adverse privacy and shadowing of existing surrounding residences,
* significant adverse impact on traffic in an area that only now manages to cope with traffic levels and with no where for increased traffic to disperse would only cause significant problems and risks to all transport users.
I do see that a redevelopment of aged care facilities at this site would be a positive thing but this proposal is not addressing the needs of the ageing population but simply a method by which the development will provide expensive apartments for persons to gain access to beachside living at the expense of current residents and the capacity of the area to cope with the significant demand on roads and facilities.

I object to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD-47105958) as it will impact on parking and disrupt our quiet suburbia lifestyle and also the size of the buildings will effect surrounding properties by loss of sunshine and light.

16.75 metres high is excessive and not warranted. The height restrictions set by the council of 13.6 metres have effectively kept Kingscliff as a village feel. Uniting does not need to make this development a monolith but should fit within the existing community vibe. The traffic impact of this project is not sustainable. The immediate streets are local streets and not able to cope with a major state development project.

Kingscliff as it currently stands has a unique and special village vibe.
This is in part attributable to the council stricly enforcing the height restriction
of 13.6 metres. Kingscliff doesn't need a towering building with a height of 16.75 metres.
I object to the sheer size of the Uniting Church development as it doesn't fit within height
boundaries as put in place by the local council. The height restrictions have been very
successful and should be kept as the precedent. In addition, as I live on Pearl Street
which is already far too busy my concern is for the impact on the traffic. Uniting
Church is a major state development which has access from a local road and I
believe it's impact on the immediate local traffic will be horrid.

As a resident living close to this proposed development I strongly disagree. It’s gross size is completely out of character for this area, in particular the height of the proposed building and the roads here are not coping with the existing traffic let alone all the extra traffic with this development

*Proposed development is completely out of character with the surrounding low rise homes and Kingscliff village
*gross over development of this flood affected site. I live north of the proposed development and was flooded in the 2022 floods.
* proposed height of development is meters higher than Kingscliff current building height. An exception to this restriction will result in a new acceptable building height which is not in line with the Kingscliff village character
* traffic impacts on local roads
* negative impact on the amenity and livability for surrounding residents such as privacy, reduction in solar access, over shadowing, added traffic congestion, loss of view and aspect, lights shinning into homes, noise associated with the running of such a large establishment.

I strongly object to this proposed development by the Uniting Church mainly on the grounds of the huge overdevelopment of this flood plain and the raising of the height from 13.6m to 16.75m. This is a village community hence why we moved from overdeveloped Sydney.

I object to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment because: 1. The development is on flooding land (picture attached). 2. The area is much smaller in real life that it appears on paper (photo attached). 3. The development overlooks our kitchen, bedroom and living area with no obvious screening and directly imposes on our privacy. 4. Uniting representatives could not give advice at the public presentation, what the perimeter fencing will be. This adjoins our rear fence and the whole side of premises (where the proposed driveway will be). The road where the entrance and entry into the facility will be aligns directly with our fencing. 5. The noise will increase with the large amount of residents, their cars and the closeness of the units (we heard the people in Drift Court, the opposite side of the project, singing Happy Birthday two nights ago). Evidence of how close. 6. The construction will bring a volume of vehicles etc. that Lorien Way is not equipped to deal with. 7. The traffic will increase the risk of harm to Lorien Way, particularly our driveway, we already have to stop on the road at times to allow other traffic, including buses to pass. 8. The size of the development and shadows will impact our solar. 9. The lights of the current Uniting facility affect our premises and sleep at times so this will increase our night times even more. 10. The current Uniting facility regularly has alarms going off which impacts us greatly. 11. This is not within the current height nor the character of Kingscliff. 12. Staff cars move around regularly, and the noise of certain has a negative effect on us. 13. The light of the proposed entrance signs will affect us. 14. The units are not affordable living which is what the area needs. 15. The impact this will have the wildlife, mainly birdlife. The existing trees house numerous species. 16. The increase of traffic, staff, deliveries and residents over a 24-hour period. With this comes noise, pollution and lights.

The current DA for the Uniting aged care facility is a significant overdevelopment.
The DA is proposing 120 aged care places and 199 two/three-bedroom apartments.
At more than twice the height of surrounding residential buildings, existing neighbours will not only experience loss of privacy but also significant overshadowing of roof top solar systems and yards.
The proposed height of this development exceeds the allowable height limit.
The proposed development is totally out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood.
Uniting have bought 4 dwellings on Lorien Way which they propose to demolish and create an access route which will have significant impact on local traffic.
As the main entry/departure point from Kingscliff Street is located very close to the roundabout with Beach Street, it will set a very dangerous precedent for cars entering and leaving the Uniting aged care facility.
Car ownership is essential in Kingscliff if you want to access services further afield. Parking in the surrounding streets is already at capacity.
The parking spaces to the proposed development is an under- estimate at what will be required and will result in an overflow which will affect surrounding streets.
Flooding
Some areas of the proposed site will be built up by more than 3 metres. Couple this with the proposal from Gale Holdings P/L to develop surrounding land, which also includes bringing in fill and we have a huge question-mark hanging over the heads of locals of what will be the future impacts of flooding.
The overall size, height, scale and density of the proposed Uniting Kingscliff development is not in keeping with the surrounding low density residential landscape.
This is no more than a luxury apartment development designed for cashed-up retirees looking for a beach lifestyle retirement.
On behalf of all the elderly and oppoents of this development who are having issues accessing the submission process (how convenient), we adamantly oppose this development.

I object to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD-47105958) because of the following reasons

1. Aesthetic Concerns:
- The proposed building would significantly alter the visual character of the street.
- It will clash with the architectural style or scale of existing houses, detracting from the overall aesthetic appeal of the neighborhood.

2. Sunlight and Shadow Impact:
- Increased height could cast large shadows over neighboring properties, reducing natural light and warmth.

3. Privacy Issues:
- Higher buildings may overlook neighboring houses, invading the privacy of residents.
- Balconies or windows at greater heights could directly peer into private living spaces, causing discomfort and intrusion.

4. Traffic and Parking:
- The additional occupants of a taller building could strain local infrastructure, leading to increased traffic congestion and parking difficulties.
- Lack of sufficient parking space for residents and visitors might spill over onto already crowded streets, exacerbating existing issues.

5. Environmental Impact:
- It will contribute to urban heat island effects and exacerbate climate change impacts on the local ecosystem.
6. Property Values:

- The presence of an excessively tall building could potentially lower property values in the surrounding area.
- Concerns about overshadowing, noise, and privacy may make properties less desirable to potential buyers or tenants.

7. Community Consensus:
- The proposed development might not align with the wishes or interests of the local community.

8. This is not really an "age care" facility... It is Uniting, profiteering under the guise of age care, when in actual fact only 8 new residential aged care spaces are provided.

Finally, I would like to add, that this is not the Gold Coast, if Uniting want to build a high denisty bulky building, do it north of the Border

I object to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD-47105958) because of the following reasons

1. Aesthetic Concerns:
- The proposed building would significantly alter the visual character of the street.
- It will clash with the architectural style or scale of existing houses, detracting from the overall aesthetic appeal of the neighborhood.

2. Sunlight and Shadow Impact:
- Increased height could cast large shadows over neighboring properties, reducing natural light and warmth.

3. Privacy Issues:
- Higher buildings may overlook neighboring houses, invading the privacy of residents.
- Balconies or windows at greater heights could directly peer into private living spaces, causing discomfort and intrusion.

4. Traffic and Parking:
- The additional occupants of a taller building could strain local infrastructure, leading to increased traffic congestion and parking difficulties.
- Lack of sufficient parking space for residents and visitors might spill over onto already crowded streets, exacerbating existing issues.

5. Environmental Impact:
- It will contribute to urban heat island effects and exacerbate climate change impacts on the local ecosystem.
6. Property Values:

- The presence of an excessively tall building could potentially lower property values in the surrounding area.
- Concerns about overshadowing, noise, and privacy may make properties less desirable to potential buyers or tenants.

7. Community Consensus:
- The proposed development might not align with the wishes or interests of the local community.

8. This is not really an "age care" facility... It is Uniting, profiteering under the guise of age care, when in actual fact only 8 new residential aged care spaces are provided.

I object to the large amount of dust, noise, vibration and heavy vehicle movement that this will generate. The health and well being of existing residents in the surrounding area will be impacted.

I object to the height of this development, the surrounding area is low rise homes and duplexes, the 4 storey buildings are not in keeping with the existing buildings. Existing residents will have their privacy, sunlight and amenities severely affected.

I object to the increase in traffic and noise in Lorien Way and Beach Street. The increased traffic from visitors and staff will make the streets more crowded and dangerous.

I object to the overflow of parking which will occur. The overflow will move into our narrow streets reducing freedom of movement. Where will our visitors park? Existing residents will return home after work with all the street parking taken up. Where will they park?

I object to the coming and going of delivery vehicles reducing our privacy.

I object to the fact that the construction will further impact on parking in the shopping precinct of Kingscliff. Such a large and sudden increase in population will make the problem worse for local residents.

I object to the filling in of the site. The 2022 flood water came up into our streets to a height never before seen. In light of this this development should not go ahead. The filling of this land with concrete and buildings will only make the situation worse. The existing residents are scared about being flooded and having to deal with the consequences of flooding. They are concerned about the loss of property value if the area is flooded. To cause flood free residents to become flood prone through increased tin off would be a disaster.

Kingsciff is a confined space and added development will only lead to overcrowding and the loss of the highly regarded and promoted village feel of the area.

I object to how condescending the representatives were at the consultation meetings. They treated us like we were stupid, they were very rude when we tried to question them about this development.

To Whom it May Concern
I object to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD-47105958) because it is entirely out of character with the surrounding homes and Kingscliff in general for the following reasons.
1. The proposed BUILDING HEIGHT is stated as 16.75 metres above ground level, several metres higher than the current building height of 13.6 metres.
2. The proposed development is to be built on a FLOOD AFFECTED site, as witnessed by myself over the last several years.
3. The proposed development will have ADDITIONAL FILL up to 3 metres in some places, further exacerbating FLOOD and HEIGHT issues to many homes in Kingscliff and the immediate surrounding areas
4. This additional fill will further raise the height of the development to an UNACCEPTABLE LEVEL.
5. TRAFFIC in the local roads will be severely impacted. Parking is an issue already in the surrounding roads of this development ie: Lorien Way, Beach St, Kingscliff St, to name a few.
6. This development is not in the CHARACTER of the low rise buildings surrounding the site and will NEGATIVELY impact on the amenability and liveability of many homes
ie: Overlooking outdoor areas, living spaces and bedrooms.
7. Other considerations to the surrounding low rise dwellings are
ie: reduction in solar access and overshadowing, added traffic and congestion, loss of view and aspect, lights shining into homes, noise associated with deliveries, shift changes, communal spaces. mechanical equipment - day and night.
8. There is a great opportunity to develop this site to meet the needs of our ageing population and keep the character and liveability of Kingscliff that I have grown to love but THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, IN IT'S CURRENT FORM, WILL NOT MEET THIS NEED.
9. It seems to me that the proposed development is that of luxury apartments instead of genuine aged care and seniors housing.
In closing, I urge the planning committee to take my objections seriously and reconsider the proposed redevelopment application (SSD-47105958) and ask for another proposal in keeping with the character and amenability of Kingscliff and to have consideration of the surrounding homes.
Yours sincerely
Jennifer Crawley
9 Osprey Place, Kingscliff NSW 2487

I object to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD-47105958) as being a neighbour this will impact our everyday life due to :
The amount of traffic and congestion on Lorien Way this is a problem now
The height of the buildings being proposed which will overlook my property which will mean no privacy and looking in living spaces and bedrooms
Flooding
Reduction in solar access and overshadowing
Shift changes
Lights shining into the home which we have consulted council already
Loss of view and aspect
Noise associated with deliveries and building

This development is in a residential area.
The impact this will have on this residential area is wrong . Do government bodies come and survey the area and see how densely populated this area is? The extra traffic congestion and parking which is non existent already so what is this going to do to the area.
It is a flood plain area . The last flood 3/4 of Beach Street was flooded . The drainage system in the area cannot cope with the extra runoff this development will cause. I live in an over 50’s park and the last flood we were very lucky flood waters didn’t come into our homes the roads were flooded and we were u able to get to the shopping centre in Kingscliff .
Please do not tell me this development will not have anything to do with run off.
Planning and Development should look at the whole situation in Kingscliff , roads infrastructure everything.
This area finds it hard to cope now. Noise factor buses trucks.
Please look into the whole situation not just the one development. I might had the entrance to the present home is on Kingscliff Street which is right on a roundabout .
I am not against progress in the right place this development is in the wrong place. Creating shadows over peoples home blocking their sunlight.

Having reviewed the Development proposal by Uniting for upgrading its Retirement facility, I am extremely disappointed with the proposal. Firstly, it has little regard for the current planning guidelines for Kingscliff, as maximum heights have been exceeded. Kingscliff residents live in Kingscliff because it does have these height limits on buildings .... we do not want our local amenity ruined by high rise (like the Gold Coast).
Secondly, the infill of flood-prone land that will be required for this development, flies in the face of the NSW government policy for 'no new development on flood plains'. Given the unprecedented flood levels that occurred in North Kingscliff after the last major flood, some residents were affected for the first time. Infilling that land will push any future flood waters into new places again. We need to respect low-lying flood prone land, leaving it undeveloped so that it can best absorb flood waters when necessary.
Thirdly, the height and density of this development is bound to impact the amenity of current residents. They are likely to be impacted by more noise and more traffic congestion in the immediate area. Residents who choose to live in Kingscliff do so because of the slower pace of life, the natural beauty, vegetation and wild life in close proximity. If they wanted more high rise and all the noise and activity associated with it, they would have chosen to live on the Gold Coast. We chose differently and do not want that level of man-made development to encroach on our beautiful, peaceful part of the world.
I do not object to the Uniting Church improving its current facilities ... I understand that we are an aging populaton, and increased capacity is necessary .... but this Development is 'over the top'! I object to Development Application SSD47105958.