Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment

Please see attached submission

I wish to object to this project on the grounds of the dangers it poses due to flood risk. In the 2022 flood the reason my property did not flood is because it backs onto a flood plain, which was full by the end of that terrible week. If that flood plain had been filled in then my neighbors and I would probably have experienced a very different outcome. So many of our neighbors were not so fortunate and long time residents tell me that the flooding was worse because of new development nearby. The proposed site for the facility is in an area that also flooded. How do the developers plan to compensate anyone whose property is going to be damaged the next time there is a flood? How will they manage the residents when the town becomes cut off? In 2022, Kingscliff was inaccessible by road for three days. Additionally, any flooding in Kingscliff would probably have impacts further upstream and therefore we may expect further damage up the road in places like Murwillumbah, for example.
I think that we are being put in danger for the sake of 8 extra nursing home beds. I sincerely hope you will reconsider this proposal. I would indeed be happy for the additional nursing home beds at the site but I don't see why these beds need to be created via a massive overdeveloped facility. A smaller development, one that would not be so tall either, would be much more appropriate for our town.
Thank you for your consideration.

Please see objection attached

I object to this Development for a number of reasons
1 The development relaxations to footprints, heights are reliant on it being an Aged Care Redevelopment (as stated on its title).
The information I have read cites an insignificant extra 8 Aged Care beds will be gained. But 199 Independent Living Units (some 3 bedroom) will be built. Does this qualify as strictly Aged Care Redevelopment? Or is it a way to get a huge development through in the guise of an Aged Care facility? If the planning relaxations only apply to the supply of new aged care places, The Application may be ineligible for consideration as such.
2 This development is inconsistent with the character of the area. It is a suburban area and the character of so many 4 story buildings do not fit in a suburban area of a small town.
We are a small town. The huge increase of 199 Units will further exacerbate traffic issues for our town. Already our town has not had its traffic or parking needs upgraded for the arrival of the Hospital. 199 new Units is quite a dramatic increase without serious consideration of the impact not just on the site but on the entire road infrastructure needed to support such an increase in population.
3 This development is inconsistent with character of the area and if approved will dramatically change the amenity of the current local residents by
A) Increasing the traffic dramatically in Lorien Way, currently a quiet suburban street. Not just many cars, Lorien Way will be the main Entrance to this facility so delivery trucks, service vehicles, ambulances, visitor traffic and parking on the street.
B) The current access onto Kingscliff Street is too close to the Kingscliff/Beach Sts roundabout – dangerous and compromised. That current access space is also too narrow to have 2way traffic safely on it.
4 Over development, overshadowing neighbouring dwellings on site boundaries, restricting light to neighbours, unrestricted light from the unshielded windows of the tall buildings, lack of air & sun- all these will impact the amenity of the neighbours.
Noise isolation, Garbage arrangements, visitor traffic and parking management, sufficient parking for 199 new Units (some 3 bedroom so possible to have 3 cars to those Units) are just some issues that need to be addressed.
5) Flooding The impact of the 2022 flood was greater in Kingscliff than previous floods. It seems sensible to await the NSW Government’s decision regarding Flood Plains before allowing new developments.
6) Arrangements for the provision of this Development on this land lock block for the period of building- where do the workers park? Where do the workers come from – are local jobs prescribed for this plan? How do the workers get to the site? How will traffic & noise issues be handled for the duration of the build? Where will the Aged Care residents be located during this time?
Of course development is inevitable but it must be managed, to enable a fair and good outcome for all. At this point the future amenity of our town and in particular, the surrounding area will suffer and be diminished. It seems to me there are many unresolved issues that need a rethink before this development should proceed.
Thank you

I object to the project,1.Lorien Way is quite narrow,when two cars are parked on both sides of the street it becomes a one lane street.
2. The height level they proposing is totally unacceptable, future residents will be looking into existing homes bach yards.
3.Kingscliff is becoming more crowded which adds more congestion on top the new hospital which is only a half kilometre away. Thanks for the opportunity to voice my objections to this project going ahead in the current proposal.

Please see attatched document outlining my objection.

Please see attached submission.

I understand the development is probably compliant with the planning framework, SEPP etc, so far as its internal arrangements are concerned. My concerns are contextual, as I believe the proposed development cannot be inserted into the urban fabric surrounding it without unacceptable impact.
My concerns are:
TRAFFIC
1) Pre-emptive Purchase compromises access decision-making. The site is rated to a major through road, but the applicants have chosen to purchase and amalgamate an adjoining house lot in order to create their principal access. That acquired house lot does not presently have development consent for an aged care facility. That purchase decision to relocate their access by such means was made prior to seeking development consent for it, and does not automatically create a legal access for the Uniting Care facility to exploit as-of-right. The Applicants need to demonstrate that the new accessway is acceptable & appropriate for incorporation into their Aged Care zoning.
2) The purchased house lot to be amalgamated is at almost the remotest point in the property from their legal frontage. It is a poor choice.
3) In consequence, most construction and future operational traffic generated by this major development will pass along an otherwise quiet neighbourhood street. This is an un-necessary and unfair imposition on the local community.
4) Exploitation of the local road & street network for access will have unacceptable impact on the amenity of the abutting community.
5) It should be indicated to the Applicants that in order to receive planning support, the principal access should be directly onto Kingscliff St or Beach St – using the same acquisition approach as with their pre-emptive choice taken prior to seeking consent.
PRIVATE PROPERTY IMPACT
6) I also understand that the style, height, and orientation of buildings adopted by the plan generates considerable loss of visual and acoustic privacy to adjoining residential premises. Apart from overlooking, few people appreciate that light shedding from internal ceilings through the windows of multi-storey buildings effectively generates floodlighting on the surrounding grounds – including adjoining residences. The location & design of garbage handling areas, venting fans, air-conditioning & refrigeration plant is unclear but all potentially generate noise pollution. There seems no provision to manage these intrusions, which derive principally from the inappropriate and perhaps excessive scale of the proposed development.
7) Obviously major site filling will obstruct natural and constructed 100 year recurrence drainage paths through the site, ones which serve adjoining residential development. It would seem boundary setbacks to accommodate these natural surface drainage revisions should be allowed for in the design.

Given the above issues, I believe that despite SEPP compliance, the proposal should not receive consent unless they are resolved.

I am against the development of Uniting at Kingscliff for the following reasons:

1. Street congestion - there is not enough room for additional parking and traffic during and after construction, on Beach Street, Lorien Way or other surrounding streets.

2. The proposed building heights are not respectful to the surrounding community. The neighbouring houses (mostly 1-2 storey houses) will lose privacy and sun, which will impact their costs of living, i.e. solar systems and rebates. It is overdevelopment amongst low density housing.

3. Flooding - as a close neighbour to the existing Uniting, this factor is a big concern for me. If the last flood was any indication of what can happen in the future, I am against any development that fills in flood prone areas. If it is filled in, it will affect the neighbouring houses during any future floods.

4. Overdevelopment in the area - it is also not in keeping with the feel of the beach side community. Maintaining the character of Kingscliff is important. It is why people come to the area

5. Not affordable - affordable housing is what is needed. These units will not provide housing for the most vulnerable elderly people in need, as the prices in the area are unattainable for most. These units are overdevelopment. It is more of a luxury rather than providing opportunities for senior housing

6. Not enough aged care beds - the increase to the existing amount of beds is minimal. This is where the need is.

7. Staffing shortages - there is a shortage of aged care staff nation wide, which directly relates to the quality of care the residents receive. This development proposes more aged care beds in a facility that can not fill existing shift vacancies. This will decrease the quality of care the residents receive.

8. It proposes to demolish 4 existing properties, which will mean that 4 lots if families will need to find different housing, which is difficult in the current climate

I object to the development due to the following 2 issues:
1 . Flooding - if we have another rain event like we did in 2022 the will be hundreds of houses impacted due to water backing up through the drains. We had water up to our letter box in the last event. I know there are plans to have rainwater go into drains under new development but I feel they will not cope in torrential rain.
2. The extra traffic on the eastern end of beach street will be horrific with existing cars parked on both sides of the road. I have been told you are basing your planning on women over 65 not driving. I am turning 70 at the end of the year and I am not giving up my drivers license or going to give up driving.
I feel the development is too big for the position in the middle of Kingscliff. A development of that size needs to be out near the hospital.

To whom it may concern,
I object to this project. I reside part-time in Drift Court Kingscliff and this project will significantly impact the liveability of my home. The 4 story development will tower over out backyard creating significant shading to the yard from very early hours of the afternoon. Not only that but there are windows from almost every apartment facing our house and I am already uncomfortable with the idea that people will see me in my yard swimming in the pool with my family.

Considering this new development only adds an additional 8 beds to the the current aged care set-up. WHY does there need to bean additional three storeys added, impacting the Kingscliff community significantly. Once a building of this scale is approved, this will pave the way for developers to develop Kingscliff into the new Gold Coast, completely decimating the communal heritage.

I am not against additional aged care housing, but a development of this scale and size is completely innapropriate and out of context witht he community. Please re-consider this plan.

Thanks and regards,
Occupant of Drift Court Kingscliff

I object to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment Proposal (SSD-47810598) in its current form. Below are my main objections
1. The height of the tallest buildings are 16.75m, being way above the current allowed building height in Kingscliff. This will be further impacted by the need to add additional fill of up to 3m therefore they will be towering way above any building in Kingscliff
2. The proportions of this development will have a huge impact on it’s surrounding residents. It will greatly impact their privacy, they will overshadow most surrounding dwellings impacting current livability and cause increased traffic and noise
3. The site proposed for this gross over development is a known flood affected site which was metres underwater in the 2022 floods. I can not understand why it is even being considered for development. Where are they intending to the divert the water to in future floods events and how will it effect residents in surrounding areas
4. Access to this development is through a narrow driveway off Kingscliff St, if the proposal is to move the access then this creates more impact on the residents of Lorien Way which I understand is a proposed access site.
5. This development does not seem to be about creating suitable aged care dwellings in Kingscliff, the large proportion will be high end private units which will be unaffordable to our current aged population and only adds 8 extra residential aged care spaces.
6. The impact of free for all development in Kingscliff is already having a profound effect on our community, traffic and parking on our streets is becoming a nightmare as most of the houses that are sold are being torn down and units taking their place with limited parking options.
7. I believe this proposal is totally out of character for this area and in no way fits in with our local environment
8. The developer needs to come back with a proposal that meets with current height limits so a dangerous precedent is not set. They also need to take into consideration the need for affordable age appropriate housing and not just cater for the wealthy

Yours sincerely,
Mrs Donna Davies

To start this website is ridiculous and a disgrace for most humans
And now to the project
1 completely out of character with the surrounding dwellings (this is not the Gold Coast)
2 the project is not a nursing home but a high rise development
3 will set a precedent for other high rises
4 shade and lost of privacy to adjacent buildings
5 do a physical assessment (door knock)
of surrounding dwellings and get a TRUE
view of the project
6 a lot of people put off by your website
7 previous site consultation was ONLY
limp service with NO interest in community
input
8 AND the things TRAFFIC FLOODING and
AMENITY

I passionately support this proposal. It is a greatly needed facility because of the need for present and future aged care. local Residents should be able to see the need and overcome their selfish views of “not in my backyard”. They will age one day. The fears of being overlooked and increased traffic etc are always overblown before a project is completed. I applaud Uniting for looking to the future in an already existing facility site.

The height of the development is exceeds all development requirements in the past for Kingscliff and should not be amended to allow this development

Uniting Church SSD-47105958

I object to the Uniting development in its current form. I hope that Uniting can consider the sensitive location of its site in regard to neighbours, its wider neighbours and the amenity of Kingscliff.
My objections are follows:

Bulk:
Overly massive and will stand out offensively amongst a maximum two storey residential
neighbours
Scale:
Not in scale with surrounding neighbours’ dwellings and nature of Kingscliff
Height:
Four stories -16.5 metres plus 3 metres of landfill, seriously? Sly and sneaky slights of prose. Where will fill be sourced (fire ants) and what flood impact being impervious?
Nature:
Not adding to a relaxed, low rise, beach community allowing light, sun and breeze to all
Noise:
In its current state Uniting Church is noisy and disturbing to neighbours during the day, starting with very early morning garbage removal, vehicles, cleaning and lights disturbing residents. What will be the impact of building over 2 x four years periods of construction, then increased residents, staff numbers and resulting traffic and daily essential services upon completion.
Flood:
Flood incidences can cause Kingscliff to be isolated both to the north and south. How will this impact Uniting’s residents if staff reside outside Kingscliff. Our region relies on many services that are both north and south of Kingscliff.
Flooding levels have been underreported from 2022
Kingscliff shopping Centre under water
Turnock street at entry to Shopping Centre underwater
Corner of Ozone Street and Kingscliff Street flooded within 15 metres of roundabout, homes on western side of Kingscliff Street that the 2019 floods didn’t reach but they did in 2022.
What flow on impact will impervious fill of 3 metres and additional concrete, driveways etc have on flood prone areas.

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

Traffic:
Increase and disruption
Increased road noise from 440 contractors accessing Uniting site. Where seriously will these contractors park?
2 x 4 year periods of construction a devastating noise and stress on Kingscliff Street and other access road residents
My age is 76 and I live on Kingscliff Street, I will be 84 around completion and those eight years of excessive intensity of noise will impact on the life of my husband and myself. We have already been impacted due to increased traffic during construction and now the completion of the Tweed Coast Hospital. Conversations on our balcony are nigh impossible except through small breaks in traffic. Inside closed doors we are impacted by increased street noise. Vehicle count has gone from 50 vehicles/5 mins to 85 vehicles. An increase of 35 vehicles/5 mins since hospital build - 1,020 per hour total.
Exiting and entering our residence driveway onto Kingscliff Street has increased in wait time and concerns due to increased vehicles passing both ways, North and South.
Roads/entry:
Kingscliff Road at Uniting site access is already complicated by its angled entry and proximity to Drift Court roundabout and then Beach Street roundabout. Buses and large vehicles to make turns at these roundabouts frequently cross right over raised roundabout centre. This is a cramped traffic area and is difficult for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles.

A lengthy building time, 440 contractors, resident parking for three bedrooms, increased daily staff, regular services and contractors at Uniting’s development will have a massive impact on my family’s senior years as we live on Kingscliff Street. Certainly we accept increased traffic. But not due to developments outside the community's needs and building regulations that have been hard fought and won to keep Kingscliff's local, amenity and coastal community both for residents and tourists.








Kingscliff is already over crowded, this development is way too large for this area and in the proposed site that is a flood plain I can see nothing good coming out of this . The area is a nightmare to get out of , or into if there is a major accident on the highway. And you want to add all those people and their cars into the mix ..what are you thinking !!!

Please find attached my list of objections relating to the size of the Uniting Development .

I object to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD-47105958).
Firstly, I fail to see why a project of this nature, size and use should satisfy the conditions of State Significant Development. I would have thought this call in power would be reserved for projects which are specialised and clearly not contemplated by a local authority planning document.
Secondly, there are several concerning aspects:
- the large number of units (effectively conventional units plus assisted living);
- the 17 metre height is imposing and does not sync with the adjoining development nor the nature of Kingscliff community. It flys in the face of the 13.6m limit under the Tweed Shire plan
- the site coverage ratio is excessive (especially when combined with the other aspects of concern)
- the land is impacted by flood. Building up the site above natural ground would assist flooding but bring material costs to the community through excessive height and bulk
- the development will generate significant traffic (to service 200 units) through operations and visitations. The adjoining road system is not designed for this intensity
- privacy and overshadowing would be of major concern to the immediate residents.