Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment

I object to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD-47105958). I have lived in Kingscliff for the last 46 years and seen many changes over that time however, I object to this redevelopment as the proposed size, scale and height of these plans are completely mismatched and out of place when compared to the rest of our little beach town. It is concerning that such a big redevelopment is proposed in a position that it will be towering over all the surrounding low set homes. Many people are going to lose their sun and their privacy if this redevelopment goes ahead. I object to the fact that if this goes ahead it is going to increase the existing issues with car parking and traffic in the surrounding streets (particularly Beach Street and Lorien Way) as these streets are constantly busy already.
My biggest concern and reason for objection is the fact that the proposed redevelopment site is on an area that is known to fill with flood waters. It does not make sense to go ahead with this redevelopment when it will increase the negative impact from floods to Kingscliff locals and the homes surrounding the site in future floods. I object to this redevelopment.

Please see attached my objections to this project.

I object to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD-47105958). I object to this redevelopment and have huge concerns about that impact that it would have on our town in future floods. It is known that the site of the proposed redevelopment fills with flood waters and if this redevelopment was to go ahead it would put the surrounding homes and locals at an even greater risk of having their homes flooded in any future floods, as all the water from that site is going to need somewhere else to go. I object to a redevelopment like this going ahead on a site that is known to flood.
Another reason that I object to this redevelopment is the large size and scale of the buildings. It is completely incompatible with the rest of our town and especially out of place when compared to all the low set buildings and homes surrounding the site that will significantly have their privacy impacted.
I have lived in Kingscliff for the last 33 years and I strongly object to this redevelopment for the above reasons.

I object to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD-47105958). My wife and I have owned and lived in Kingscliff since 1987. I object to the size of this large redevelopment proposal as it does not fit in with anything else in the Kingscliff community and is completely out of character with the surrounding homes. The streets that surround the site are always very busy and cars parked everywhere so I have big concerns about the impact this will have on traffic and parking issues that already exist.
Another big concern and reason I object to the redevelopment is because of the issue surrounding future floods. It is known that the redevelopment side flooded with water in the last floods and the impact that a large redevelopment on this site would have is huge, where is that water going to go? It is a big worry that there were so many homes surrounding this site that narrowly missed having water ingress into their homes and that if this development goes ahead, next time it floods it would likely result in flood waters entering even more homes in our community. It doesn’t make sense to go ahead with this redevelopment on a known flood site. I object to this redevelopment.

I object to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD-47105958). I have owned and lived in Kingscliff since 1987 with my husband. I object to the redevelopment as it raises big concerns and issues for future floods in our area. It is well known that the site of the proposed redevelopment has flooded full of water in previous floods and if this redevelopment was to proceed it would cause major issues during any future floods as all the water that filled that space previously would be forced to go elsewhere. This is very alarming for surrounding houses that could be significantly impacted and faced with flood waters entering their properties because it is forced from this site where it usually fills.
I object to this redevelopment because from the design plans that I have seen it is completely out of character and does not match the town of Kingscliff at all and is very out of place towering over the surrounding low set homes. I object to the fact that the heigh of this redevelopment appears to be higher than any other building in Kingscliff. It does not make sense to put such a large scale redevelopment in this position, towering over the local homes and taking away from their sunshine and privacy. I object to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment.

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 justification of my objection has been attached to this submission.

Anonymous
Drift Court
Kingscliff NSW 2487

13/06/2024

NSW Government - Major Projects

Subject: Objection to the Redevelopment of the Uniting Church Kingscliff

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed redevelopment of the Uniting Church in Kingscliff based on several significant concerns outlined below.

1. **Excessive Building Height**:
The proposed development includes a building height well over the local height limit for the R1 zone of 13.6 meters. This height is excessive and incompatible with the existing residential character of the area, which predominantly consists of single and double-storey homes.

The justification for the excess height above current ground level (build up with earth icing to new ground level) is in itself in excess of a reasonable limit.

2. **Excessive Earth Moving and Ground Build-Up**:
The proposal to build up the ground to 3.8 meters Australian Height Datum (AHD) is excessive. This means the ground floor slab would be at 4.2 to 4.3 meters AHD, a full meter above the theoretical 1 in 100-year flood level. Given that the lowest slab of my house was 400 to 500 meters above a literal 1 in 500-year flood that occurred two years ago, has a Reference Level (RL) of 3.7 meters AHD, the proposed ground level build-up and subsequent 13.6-meter building height is excessively high and inappropriate for the area.

3. **Impact on Surrounding Residential Properties**:
The site is surrounded by residential housing, mostly consisting of single and double-storey homes. The proposed development’s height and mass are out of scale and character with the surrounding properties, leading to significant visual intrusion.

4. **Inaccurate Shadow Studies**:
The shadow studies presented appear to be inaccurate. I request that an independent third-party study be conducted to ensure transparency and accuracy in assessing the impact of shadowing on surrounding properties.

5. **Omission in Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)**:
My house, which shares a corner boundary with the proposed development site, is not referenced or indicated anywhere in the EIS. This oversight raises concerns about what other important details may be missing or overlooked in the impact assessment with respect to immediate neighbouring properties.

6. **Loss of Privacy and Views**:
The proposed height and scale of the development will result in excessive shadowing and a significant loss of privacy and views for neighboring properties, including mine. This is a major concern that needs to be addressed.

7. **Increased Noise Levels**:
The redevelopment will likely result in significantly increased noise levels, both during the construction phase and once the development is operational. This increase in noise is unacceptable in a residential area.

8. **Inadequate Traffic Management Plan**:
While a traffic management study has been conducted, it does not adequately cover the demolition and construction phases, nor does it address the likely overflow of parking into neighboring streets once the development is operational. This will exacerbate existing traffic and parking issues in the area.

9. **Limited Benefit for Aged Care**:
Despite the redevelopment being promoted as catering for aged care, it only adds a few new beds to the current arrangement, with the majority of the new development comprising units. This raises questions about the true intent and benefit of the redevelopment for aged care services.

Given these significant concerns, I urge NSW Major Projecta to reconsider the approval of this redevelopment proposal. The excessive height, impact on the character of the neighborhood, inadequate impact assessments, and other issues highlighted above make this redevelopment inappropriate for the location.

To conclude this submission, the following is a direct statement from Uniting’s website, one component of the organisation’s Mission Statement. , “ Enliven communities so that everyone contributes.” and it’s components; Community Wellbeing and Unity. This statement and the components appear to be in contradiction with the proposed development. Some of the most affected surrounding neighbours to the proposed development were the first(perhaps only) to attend the existing nursing home as flood waters rose just two years ago. This submission therefore ,above all, requests a fair and reasonable approach that satisfies all stakeholders.

Thank you for considering my objections.

Sincerely,

Resident of Drift Court

I object to the above project due to the factors outlined in my letter below - serious consideration needs to be taken when reviewing this submission as what is being proposed will make a significant impact on the town of Kingscliff.

Objection to the Uniting Kingscliff redevelopment (SSSD-47105958)
I own property in one of the streets adjoining this project backing onto the northern boundary of the proposed complex. I believe this project will have negative impacts not only for my property but for all others adjoining it and Kingscliff in general for the following reasons:
> For my property and all those directly backing onto the complex the proposed height of the buildings will overshadow them and take much needed light and, significantly, privacy. Occupants of the complex will overlook homes including windows and back yards from all angles. The height of the proposed buildings exceeds the current 13.6m height limit in Kingscliff and are completely out of character for the town. Uniting state that they have addressed height concerns by reducing the building heights from 5 stories to 4. This reduction still exceeds the height limit and the buildings will continue to dwarf surrounding properties. Shadow and reduced sunlight during the day is also concerning. Uniting have stated that their study indicates "minimal additional shadowing during the day" . This is a vague and unsupported statement. Uniting have not provided any evidence or rationale for this statement. A 4 storey building must produce significant shadow morning and afternoon.

> Noise: there will be increased people noise, traffic noise and noise from air conditioners backing onto our homes. Current residents have a right to peace and quiet. For many who live in Kingscliff this is one of the reasons they live there. It is a quiet small community where you can get a good nights sleep. This will be no more once you have people coming and going at all hours, social gatherings, machinery such as pool filters, air conditioners, cars etc. The plan for the proposed complex shows paths running around the perimeter of the complex which will result in movement of people directly along the fenclines of neighbors.
> Water and flooding. My property currently has a problem with flooding because it is low lying. The plan for the complex shows there will be a concrete wall on my fence line with a fence on top of that. there will be fill behind the concrete. Uniting have stated that they have taken into account flood patterns for the past century and have planned accordingly to mitigate flooding. They do not have appeared to take into account current and future changes to weather patterns that are bringing increased volumes of rain and storm activity. They state that excess water runoff will be diverted to existing drainage infrastructure however there is no indication that existing infrastructure has capacity to accommodate the increase in storm water.
> What is the plan for water usage and effluent waste disposal? Does the existing infrastructure have capacity to deal with an influx of so many people or are our beautiful beaches going to be polluted by overflow every time there is a heavy rain?
> Traffic congestion and parking will be affected. Uniting have stated that they have relied on traffic surveys and that these show an increase of 48 trips during peak times. Given that they intend to provide 370 car parking spaces in the complex this number appears unrealistic.
>Impact on the community of Kingscliff in general: As a senior citizen my self I understand the need to provide accommodation for an ageing population however the existing services for the community will be put under extreme pressure with so many additional people using the shopping centre, medical facilities, public services, parks, transport such as buses.
This development will change the character of the town which is not conducive to high density high rise accommodation. While people will be delighted to reside within the facility itself no one will want to live in its immediate vicinity. There will be a negative impact on property values and rents for adjoining properties. Uniting wins to the detriment of the rest of Kingscliff .

Please see attachment for: Objection letter for the Kingscliff Uniting Project

I object to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD-47105958)’ on the following grounds
1. Scale, Height and size of project far exceed local council regulations.
2. Scale, Height and size of project will have a dramatic negative effect on local and my personal amenity.
3. Height of development with Lorine Way currently single story with a few 2 story homes, while this development will be 4 stories plus utilizes on the roof, being 16.75 meters built on an extra 3.6 meters of fill, effectively being 20.35 meters tall, towering over the single and 2 level homes.
4. My amenity and street scape will be destroyed as the development will completely dominate the view from my home as it towers over the previously quite neighborhood.
5. Misrepresentation of Uniting’s application by adding an extra 3.6meters of fill before building the structure far above current height limits.
6. The height of the building will impact the sun and light on my property.
7. Height will allow occupants of the building to look directly into my bedrooms.
8. Light from the building will shine into my bedrooms whilst we attempt to sleep.
9. Medium density accommodation such as this development is not in the Tweed Shire Development Strategy and Character Statement for North Kingscliff (this development’s location) due to it being an existing residential area. Medium density is only proposed for "greenfield" developments NOT for existing residential areas where this development is proposed. Again, this is misrepresented in the applicant’s submission.
10. Increased traffic in a residential area. Why should a development of this size rely on funneling traffic onto Lorien Way? This street is designed for residential traffic.
11. Extended building time. Construction is proposed over 4 years, with a claimed over 400 construction workers.
12. Insufficient parking for the construction workers, crowding the local residential streets with workers vehicles. With over 400 requiring parking as construction workers required to carry tools, making public transport impracticable.
13. Noise from the construction, with the large number of workers, and the obvious noise of construction. I fear for my neighbors psychical and mental wellbeing who are shift workers within the Emergency Services trying to sleep during the construction period.
14. Flood impact is being ignored by the applicant. During the 2022 flood my home was within 150mm of being engulfed in water. This enormous development is on this flood prone area will increase water runoff thereby overloading the current drainage system with the potential to cause flooding to all the homes in the area.
15. Very limited increase in aged care beds. With the current facility having 120 beds, which will be demolished, aged care beds will only increase by 8 to a total of 128. if the applicant was sincere in improving the healthcare of frail aged venerable people this would be vastly different.
16. Projected cost of construction demonstrates the buy in cost of accommodation units will be exceedingly high, meaning local aged residents will not be able to afford to purchase into the development.
17. The development is claiming to be for aged care, while it appears that it will simply be a retirement resort mascaraing as Aged Care as demonstrated by the meagre 8 extra aged care beds.
18. Only one car park will be provided for each unit. to believe this adequate is ridiculous.
19. A precedent will be set for massive overdevelopment in the Kingscliff Village, destroying what people find attractive about Kingscliff.

12 June 2024
Uniting Age Care Development Kingscliff – LETTER OF OBJECTION

I write this to make clear the objection I have regarding the proposed Uniting Aged Care Development in Kingscliff. 34 Drift Court, Kingscliff share a 34m direct boundary fence with this project (see attachment) and these issues directly impact our daily living, lifestyle, privacy and mental health. I have outlined a few topics of concern.

1. Privacy – Entire yard, alfresco, pool area, master bedroom, dining and living areas.
With the proposed heights of 4 storeys and above, the privacy aspect of our outdoor alfresco area, our master bedroom, living area, dining room and our pool area will be severely diminished. Not only will our privacy be breached, but it is also of utmost concern that our pool area will be in full view of residence in this building. We have teenagers, both male and female who should feel comfortable and privacy swimming in their own backyards. Mobile phone devices and prying eyes will have full view of this. The thought of this simply makes me feel sick to my stomach. The proposed heights and sheer density of this development overlooking residential private properties, is out of sync with the surrounding suburban area.
I warmly invite you into our home and back yard at any time, to view for yourself the negative impact this will have on our lifestyle, children safety and protection as well as our mental health.

2. Privacy of Residents –
There is an aged care resident who regularly walks behind our back fence, proceeds to undress, and stand against our back fence. My wife contacted Uniting about this as we were absolutely shocked when this first happened. A naked man on our back fence! The staff proceeded to laugh over the phone and tell my wife that this is a daily ocurance and still happens to this day. No action was taken, and it was treated as a joke. If they can’t provide a safe private space for residents, how will they control this when there are balconies looking over my entire backyard. This is unacceptable and is an extreme breach of privacy. If this was to happen off grounds the police would most certainly be notified.

3. Natural Light/Overshadowing
The main living areas, pool and master bedroom are all the rear of the property. The size and scale of this development will leave very minimal natural light into these areas at all, if any. This again in turn will have a huge impact on the physical health and mental health of my family. I have previously requested shadowing diagrams to show how the development will impact our property but I still have yet to revieve these. The attachment shows how open our yard is to expose maximum light and natural heating of our pool.
I again, warmly invite you into my home to see for yourself first-hand how this will impact us.
4. Noise and Light Pollution
Noise is already very evident in this facility. The cars entering and exiting at all hours, delivery trucks, the garbage services well before the sun comes up. The gas company refiling gas at ridiculous hours. The alarms that go off at 2am in the morning. The flood lights in the property that shine straight through our master bedroom. All of this was acceptable because I chose to move in and share a fence with this neighbour. What is not acceptable, nor did I sign up for, is to live next door to such a huge facility that all these service and noise can be multiplied exponentially. How is one supposed to be accepting of this on their back fence. Where will the air-conditioning systems be placed and how will the noise be muted? Where will all the delivery trucks, garbage services etc be located to have minimal impact on direct neighbours?

5. Flooding
Flooding is of huge concern for us. We fell victim to the 2022 floods and lost our business, our trucks, caravan, cars, equipment and most of all our income for the best part of a year. We were very lucky that our property at Drift Court was spared this fate at this time. Not by much though. Building the ground levels up will simply move the water to neighbouring properties. This is extremely concerning.

6. Traffic on Drift Ct/Kingscliff St Roundabout
The traffic at the Kingscliff St and Drift Court roundabout is an already extremely busy and dangerous one. Every neighbour must be extra vigilant when coming onto and off this roundabout with the amount of traffic now. A huge concern with excess traffic in and around this with more residence is extremely concerning and needs further planning and consideration.

7. Construction Fatigue
A project such as this proposal is going to have an enormous effect on the surrounding neighbours. Noise and dust alone for a single dwelling is draining on the neighbours let alone a mammoth project of this proportion. How will demolition and machinery vibrations affect the integrity of my home’s foundations? Noise, dust, excess machinery, excess people, radios etc. The mental health and well-being of many will be in jeopardy. This is an industrial sized operation in the middle of suburbia. You have an obligation to your local neighbours to make sure they will not suffer through this process. Honesty and transparency need to be at the forefront.

8. Scale and height of Development
As mentioned in several sections of this letter, the scale and size of this development is of mammoth and industrial sized proportions. The level at which you propose, will have a detrimental outcome on myself, my family and many of my neighbours. Some of which are already losing sleep as stress levels have increased. The loss of sunlight, breezes, and above all privacy of our property will negatively impact our social, mental and in turn physical health. Your home is your sanctuary and losing our privacy will most certainly lead to a decline in health. I am not against the idea of expanding and improving Uniting Care, I am against the sheer size and scale of this proposed development.
Regards

Paul White

Paul White
34 Drift Ct, Kingscliff
0412 591 561
[email protected]

Attachments:

I object to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD-47105958)’ on the following grounds
1. Scale, Height and size of project far exceed local council regulations.
2. Scale, Height and size of project will have a dramatic negative effect on local and my personal amenity.
3. Height of development with Lorine Way currently single story with a few 2 story homes, while this development will be 4 stories plus utilizes on the roof, being 16.75 meters built on an extra 3.6 meters of fill, effectively being 20.35 meters tall, towering over the single and 2 level homes.
4. My amenity and street scape will be destroyed as the development will completely dominate the view from my home as it towers over the previously quite neighborhood.
5. Misrepresentation of Uniting’s application by adding an extra 3.6meters of fill before building the structure far above current height limits.
6. The height of the building will impact the sun and light on my property.
7. Height will allow occupants of the building to look directly into my bedrooms.
8. Light from the building will shine into my bedrooms whilst we attempt to sleep.
9. Medium density accommodation such as this development is not in the Tweed Shire Development Strategy and Character Statement for North Kingscliff (this development’s location) due to it being an existing residential area. Medium density is only proposed for "greenfield" developments NOT for existing residential areas where this development is proposed. Again, this is misrepresented in the applicant’s submission.
10. Increased traffic in a residential area. Why should a development of this size rely on funneling traffic onto Lorien Way? This street is designed for residential traffic.
11. Extended building time. Construction is proposed over 4 years, with a claimed over 400 construction workers.
12. Insufficient parking for the construction workers, crowding the local residential streets with workers vehicles. With over 400 requiring parking as construction workers required to carry tools, making public transport impracticable.
13. Noise from the construction, with the large number of workers, and the obvious noise of construction. I fear for my neighbors psychical and mental wellbeing who are shift workers within the Emergency Services trying to sleep during the construction period.
14. Flood impact is being ignored by the applicant. During the 2022 flood my home was within 150mm of being engulfed in water. This enormous development is on this flood prone area will increase water runoff thereby overloading the current drainage system with the potential to cause flooding to all the homes in the area.
15. Very limited increase in aged care beds. With the current facility having 120 beds, which will be demolished, aged care beds will only increase by 8 to a total of 128. if the applicant was sincere in improving the healthcare of frail aged venerable people this would be vastly different.
16. Projected cost of construction demonstrates the buy in cost of accommodation units will be exceedingly high, meaning local aged residents will not be able to afford to purchase into the development.
17. The development is claiming to be for aged care, while it appears that it will simply be a retirement resort mascaraing as Aged Care as demonstrated by the meagre 8 extra aged care beds.
18. Only one car park will be provided for each unit. to believe this adequate is ridiculous.
19. A precedent will be set for massive overdevelopment in the Kingscliff Village, destroying what people find attractive about Kingscliff.

I live directly adjacent to the proposed Uniting development at Kingscliff and would like to formally object to this development proposal and raise some serious concerns. Please see attachment for details of my submission

I object to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD-47105958)’ on the following grounds
1. Scale, Height and size of project far exceed local council regulations.
2. Scale, Height and size of project will have a dramatic negative effect on local and my personal amenity.
3. Height of development with Lorine Way currently single story with a few 2 story homes, while this development will be 4 stories plus utilizes on the roof, being 16.75 meters built on an extra 3.6 meters of fill, effectively being 20.35 meters tall, towering over the single and 2 level homes.
4. My amenity and street scape will be destroyed as the development will completely dominate the view from my home as it towers over the previously quite neighborhood.
5. Misrepresentation of Uniting’s application by adding an extra 3.6meters of fill before building the structure far above current height limits.
6. The height of the building will impact the sun and light on my property.
7. Height will allow occupants of the building to look directly into my bedrooms.
8. Light from the building will shine into my bedrooms whilst we attempt to sleep.
9. Medium density accommodation such as this development is not in the Tweed Shire Development Strategy and Character Statement for North Kingscliff (this development’s location) due to it being an existing residential area. Medium density is only proposed for "greenfield" developments NOT for existing residential areas where this development is proposed. Again, this is misrepresented in the applicant’s submission.
10. Increased traffic in a residential area. Why should a development of this size rely on funneling traffic onto Lorien Way? This street is designed for residential traffic.
11. Extended building time. Construction is proposed over 4 years, with a claimed over 400 construction workers.
12. Insufficient parking for the construction workers, crowding the local residential streets with workers vehicles. With over 400 requiring parking as construction workers required to carry tools, making public transport impracticable.
13. Noise from the construction, with the large number of workers, and the obvious noise of construction. I fear for my neighbors psychical and mental wellbeing who are shift workers within the Emergency Services trying to sleep during the construction period.
14. Flood impact is being ignored by the applicant. During the 2022 flood my home was within 150mm of being engulfed in water. This enormous development is on this flood prone area will increase water runoff thereby overloading the current drainage system with the potential to cause flooding to all the homes in the area.
15. Very limited increase in aged care beds. With the current facility having 120 beds, which will be demolished, aged care beds will only increase by 8 to a total of 128. if the applicant was sincere in improving the healthcare of frail aged venerable people this would be vastly different.
16. Projected cost of construction demonstrates the buy in cost of accommodation units will be exceedingly high, meaning local aged residents will not be able to afford to purchase into the development.
17. The development is claiming to be for aged care, while it appears that it will simply be a retirement resort mascaraing as Aged Care as demonstrated by the meagre 8 extra aged care beds.
18. Only one car park will be provided for each unit. to believe this adequate is ridiculous.
19. A precedent will be set for massive overdevelopment in the Kingscliff Village, destroying what people find attractive about Kingscliff.

I object to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD-47105958)’ on the following grounds
1. Scale, Height and size of project far exceed local council regulations.
2. Scale, Height and size of project will have a dramatic negative effect on local and my personal amenity.
3. Height of development with Lorine Way currently single story with a few 2 story homes, while this development will be 4 stories plus utilises on the roof, being 16.75 meters built on an extra 3.6 meters of fill, effectively being 20.35 meters tall, towering over the single and 2 level homes.
4. My amenity and street scape will be destroyed as the development will completely dominate the view from my home as it towers over the previously quite neighbourhood.
5. Misrepresentation of the Uniting's application by adding an extra 3.6meters of fill before building the structure far above current height limits.
6. The height of the building will impact the sun and light to my property.
7. Height will allow occupants of the building to look directly into my bedrooms.
8. Light from the building will shine into my bedrooms whilst I attempt to sleep.
9. 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 an existing residential area. Medium density is only proposed for "greenfield" developments NOT for existing residential areas where this development is proposed. Again this is misrepresented in the applicants submission.
10. Increased traffic in a residential area. Why should a development of this size rely on funnelling traffic onto Lorien Way? this street is designed for residential traffic.
11. Extended building time. Construction is proposed over 4 years, with a claimed over 400 construction workers.
12. Insufficient parking for the construction workers, crowding the local residential streets with workers vehicles. With over 400 requiring parking as construction workers required to carry tools, making public transport impracticable.
13. Noise from the construction, with the large number of workers, and the obvious noise of construction. I fear for my neighbours psychical and mental wellbeing who are shift workers within the Emergency Services trying to sleep during the construction period.
14. Flood impact is being ignored by the applicant. During the 2022 flood my home was within 150mm of being engulfed on water. This enormous development on this flood prone area will increase water runoff thereby over loading the current drainage system with the potential to cause flooding to all the homes in the area.
15. Very limited increase in aged care beds. With the current facility having 120 beds, which will be demolished, aged care beds will only increase by 8 to a total of 128. if the applicant was sincere in improving the healthcare of frail aged venerable people this would be vastly different.
16. Projected cost of construction demonstrates the buy in cost of accommodation units will be exceedingly high, meaning local aged residents will not be able to afford to purchase into the development.
17. The development is claiming to be for aged care, while it appears that it will simply be a retirement resort mascaraing as Aged Care as demonstrated by the meagre 8 extra aged care beds.
18. Only one car park will be provided for each unit. to believe this adequate is ridiculous.
19. A precedent will be set for massive overdevelopment in the Kingscliff Village, destroying what people find attractive about Kingscliff.

Objection to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD-47105958)

A neighbourhood where kids roam around freely stands to be interrupted by this redevelopment. Many neighbours will have their privacy interfered with along with serious overshadowing. A development of this size is not welcome in our small neighbourhood.


I object to:
• the serious overshadowing that will impact home owners in close proximity to this development. There are many children that reside in the homes around this development and the proposed development creates many privacy concerns for young families due to the large glass windows.
• The size of the development and how noise will be managed noting the number of residents the proposed development intends to accommodate.
• The bulk and scale of the building which will impact neighbours in close proximity. Furthermore, a development of this size is too large for this community.
• Exceeding the building height limit. The proposed development needs to be cut back.
• The increased traffic flow that will result from this.

I do not accept this development whatsoever in its current form.

Yours faithfully

Sophie Callister

I object to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SDD-47105958). I outline my reasons below:
*This proposed development is too large for all the surrounding homes on Lorien Way, Beach Street, Blue Jay Circuit, Drift Court and Kingscliff Street.
* When I purchased my property in 2002, the real estate agent assured me that it was prohibited for buildings in Kingscliff to be built more than 3 stories high or 13.6 metres. This would mean the new development would be more than 3 metres above the legal limit. What is the point of having regulations, if developers can come in and blatantly disregard this?
* The grounds of this proposed redevelopment are flood affected. This was evident in 2022, as a result of the heavy rain during late February and early March. What would happen if the same or worse was to occur in the future? The drainage would not be sufficient to deal with the flow of water. This will exacerbate flood issues for all surrounding streets.
*The lane way from the property to Kingscliff Street would not be able to cope with heavy delivery vehicles entering and exiting the facility. Looking at the width and the bend in the thoroughfare, vehicles would struggle to fit, considering that there is a narrow walkway for pedestrians and absolutely no room to widen the lane.
*Lorien Way is not designed for excessive traffic entering or exiting the complex. The gross over development would ruin the quality of life of those who presently live on Lorien Way. They would lose privacy and their properties would be in shadow all year round, affecting their gardens and making it difficult for drying washing.
*This would also affect the residents in Drift Court and those who live in the retirement village on the northern side of Blue Jay Circuit, who would also lose privacy and sunlight.
* There is also the noise factor during weekdays, when the construction of the new complex is taking place. This will affect all residents in the surrounding streets above mentioned for 2 to 3 years at least.
Last, but not least, I do not recall any community consultation from the Uniting Church. There were no information pamphlets delivered to the residents of Blue Jay Circuit. In my opinion, this was very sneaky and if it wasn't for a neighbour who lives in Lorien Way informing me of this ridiculous proposal, I would be none the wiser.

I object to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD-47105958)
Flood issues
1.Storm Water
Strom water drainage from the existing ACF relies on a retention basin next to the facility. The proposed development significantly increases the imperviousness area on the site and will fill this retention basin. Therefore the site will increase storm water run off & without attenuation that is currently provided by the retention basin, will overload the existing .pipe storm water drainage & potentially flood the surrounding properties.
2, Flood of 2022
People who live around the proposed development report that during the 2022 floods. They have videos of the carpark behind the current Aged Care Facility (ACF), flooding & staff having to move their cars before they floated away. And this was right next to the retention basin. Imagine what will happen with the basin filled in, significantly more impervious area on the site & of course the increasing severity of climate change. The proposal does not adequately deal with these risks.
3. Overdevelopment of the site
The Uniting proposal is not in keeping with the Tweed Council LEP, which was developed over several years with significant community input. This development exceeds to current high limits that the community has fought for.
The Development is also completely out of character with the surrounding homes that are mostly single storey with a few two storey houses.

4. Traffic issues
A development of this size will generate significant traffic, especially during the construction phase, where no onsite parking will be provided by Uniting for their proposed significant workforce. The streets surrounding this site are narrow & there is already many local resident’s cars parked on these roads day & night.
It is incomprehensible that Uniting is going to ”encourage” construction worker to seek alternative transport method. In truth what will occur is tradesman utes parked anywhere & everywhere.
Traffic congestion will also occur long after construction is completed. 199 Independent Living Units – 265 carparks for them. Coupled with limited staff & visitor car parking. Again people will be forced to park on nearby roads. Unfortunately despite the local community pointing this out in our submissions against the Tweed Valley Hospital, less than two weeks after it has opened, the carparks are full and staff & visitors are parking in streets nearby, on the side of the roads, in the TAFE etc.


5. What the local community really needs
The Uniting Proposal makes much of the fact that this proposal will provide “housing that meets the needs of the community.” Has anyone in Uniting Property actually looked at & listened to the local community to see what our needs actually are? Uniting Church is a charitable organisation and profit should not be your main motive.
As a nurse I am extremely concerned that the focus of this proposed development is not on providing more Residential Aged Care (RAC) beds (only additional 8-34, depends on which part you read) when RAC beds is what Kingscliff and the Tweed area are crying out for. Our local hospitals are full of elderly people waiting for extended periods to get a place in an Aged Care Facility. These people are blocking hospital beds for weeks even months while they wait. Sometimes they have to accept a bed in an ACG which is far away from their family and local community.
This begs the question why is Uniting Church not focussing on providing additional RAC beds for the local community instead of 199 Independent Living units?
I have recently had to place my elderly Mother into an ACF & even though she was a long serving Uniting Church member she did not want to go into the current Uniting ACF in Kingscliff. I spent weeks trying to obtain a place in a high care ACF, but all of the ACFs in the surrounding area were full, with extremely long wait lists. However there were numerous facilities that were offering Independent living units. So my point is, what we need in not only Kingscliff, but the wider community, is more RAC beds NOT more independent living units.

I recommend that the Planner reject the Uniting Church proposal for the above reasons.

Objection to the Uniting Aged Care Development Kingscliff NSW

I write to express my grave concerns and strong opposition to the proposed massive Uniting aged care development adjacent to my property in Lorien Way, Kingscliff. When I purchased my home in April 2023, it was advertised as a ‘peaceful and quiet haven’, ideal for my work-from-home lifestyle and upcoming retirement. The potential development was never communicated to me and would have been a deal breaker. The prospect of an extensive construction period and towering development that exceeds current height restrictions, directly behind my bordering boundary fence, threatens to obliterate this tranquility and that of my neighbours while also permanently compromising the amenity and character of Kingscliff.
The consultation materials fail to adequately address critical issues such as overdevelopment of flood-affected area, breaching current height restrictions, construction noise, dust, and traffic disruptions that will undoubtedly arise from the proposed four year-long construction period and the resulting development should it proceed.
This development seems focused on maximizing profits rather than serving our community’s needs, with its high-rise structures starkly clashing with the character, amenity and current height restrictions of our coastal village. I believe it will also set a precedent that will lead to long-term negative impacts from future Kingscliff developments.

My specific objections
• I object to the proposed breach of Kingscliff’s current building height restriction which will result in buildings severely at odds with current surrounding low-rise housing
• I object to the guise of providing aged care places when this development is more about providing high end luxury apartments
• I object to the density of housing proposed, again at odds with current and existing dwellings
• I object to the impact of inevitable construction noise, dust and disruption to  neighbours during the build
• I object to the potential long-term increase and pollution of the extra traffic which will be produced in local suburban roads during and after construction, day and night
• I object to the ambulances, lights, sirens etc that will be a constant, day and during the night and the impact that will have on the community and neighbours.
• I object to the additional entrance and resulting increase in traffic proposed for Lorien Way.
• I object to the proposed illuminated signage at entrances.
• I object to the lack of and inadequate consultation that has taken place to date
• I submit that the development in its current proposed form will not meet the needs of our aging population and should not be rubber-stamped with considerable further redesign and consultation.

Background

I purchased my townhouse in Lorien Way in April 2023 while I was away on business and saw the property advertised online. It was advertised as peaceful and quiet which was very appealing, as I work from home and need a quiet home office. It was also appealing as a peaceful retirement option for the near future as I am approaching retirement and looking for a safe, quiet haven. The property was advertised as such and at no time did the agents communicate to me verbally or via any of the property’s advertising collateral, that the potential Uniting Development was propose.
Property advertisement (excerpts from realestate.com.au)
This three-bedroom villa situated in a quiet complex of four is in an ideal location to enjoy Kingscliff's coastal lifestyle. Less than 400m easy walk or bike ride to the beach and only a short stroll to experience Kingscliff's shopping, cafe and restaurant precinct. Located at the quiet end of a small complex with a beautifully private north-east facing yard and fully renovated, you won't find a better presented home! 291m2 of extremely private and quiet indoor/outdoor space on title.

I understand from the developer’s own published timeline that this was widely communicated and advertised to the community in August 2022. My neighbors, who have lived in the complex for many years have told me, ‘…everyone in Kingscliff knew about the development’.

After purchasing the property with no knowledge of the Development, I returned to Kingscliff and moved in on 8th April. It was the first time I had physically seen the property in person and was thrilled with the quiet aspect bordering the retirement home along the full length of my property. This garden and patio area is quiet, serene and full of birdlife. The sunshine into the yard is already not major, as it is winter, but with the current vegetation and aspect, it will provide enough light into the garden and my home. Any future buildings (especially 4- storey ones) I believe will significantly impact my outlook and will overlook my only garden area and impact the natural light.
I returned immediately to the U.S. for work and only came back to Kingscliff at the beginning of June. That week I received a notice from Uniting, advising us of the community consultation events to take place on both 20 and 21 June. I had no real understanding of what the proposal entailed and meant until I attended both those sessions in person.
I am devastated at the extent and size of the proposed development, and what it means for my property and how it will adversely affect my life, my mental health, both currently and for the foreseeable future, and the reasonable enjoyment of my home during the extensive construction period and once completed.

My property specific issues
On the Uniting redevelopment plan, the boundary fence along my property, and that of my neighbours shows a planned buffer of trees/ plantings on the Uniting side except directly along my back fence.
I object to the loading-zone /parking spots on the plan, directly positioned along my fence boundary so any buffer will be either non-existent or greatly reduced but only for my property.
I object to the delivery bays directly opposite my back fence into building #6: causing more traffic, more noise. This will have a major detrimental effect on my and my neighbours’ peace and quiet, with trade cars and trucks arriving and departing directly outside my back fence which separates Uniting from my current outdoor living and entertaining space.
I strongly object to the concept of four (at least) continual years of construction noise and pollution. It is unbearable as it is the absolute antithesis of why I purchased the property and moved to Kingscliff. I understand that this was originally noted as being six years and that there is no explanation of how the same build will be condensed into four.

I object to the fact that the traffic into and out of the proposed Lorien Way entry will be constant – making the road much busier and nosier, and more dangerous for bike-riding, something I do daily. This was another reason I purchased in Lorien Way; the road does not have much traffic. This will change considerably if the development goes ahead.
The developers say they are going to widen the entrance on Kingscliff Street but don't appear to have enough space to do so. There is bound to be traffic hold-ups at the roundabout at Beach Street, as people coming from the north attempt to turn across traffic to get into the development.

I am also concerned about the effect of the development on my property in the event of future flood events and am not convinced that flood mitigation has been either adequately considered or prepared for in the plans for potential exacerbation on surrounding properties.
On top of all the above, I object to the fact that this development is more about making profits from high-rise apartment- style dwellings than it is about increasing available aged care places and has been falsely promoted as being primarily about adding to the available aged care places when only 8 additional places will result.
I am completely against the proposed development for all the reasons above, both for my property and for the community.
I recognise the plans have changed considerably from the first submission but feel these changes are relatively minor and made to appear as though the developers have made concessions.
This proposed multi-storey facility is not in line with the character and amenity of the small coastal village that is Kingscliff. It will not substantially improve aged care availability and I strongly object to the negative precedent that this will set for future developers and that of Kingscliff as a town.