Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment

I object to this proposal as we live right next door.
we are on 4/ 9 Lorien way and we look directly onto uniting now.
It’s ok as it is only a one storey building.
We are going to be looking straight at a 4 storey building, which really will be a five story once you back full it.
It will look very out of place in this area.
Not to mention the flood issue.
We did not buy here to do this.
I object to Lorien way being used as the assess to the site.
as it is now there is so much traffic coming and going, trying to get out of our drive way as become a hazard, once you put trucks etc during the build it’s going to get worse.
Then once it’s built it’s going to be a service entry.
I object to having the service road at our boundary fence, we live in Kingscliff for the peace and harmony, this will now go.
The noise level in our area is going to rise and impact on our health and well being.
Instead of us listening to birds and the ocean, it’s going to be trucks and cars.
We did not buy here to have this at our back door.
I object to the hours of work, we will have to shut our doors and windows for 4 yrs.
Our health will be impacted in such a big way
I already suffer from anxiety, this will escalate it.
My daughter as asthma. Now we are going to have to put air purifiers in our house because of the dust etc.

I object because of flooding in our street. Twice in the last 5 yrs we have had floods and each time the uniting area was flooded.
Once the land level is raised, where is this water going then. We have the ocean and tides to consider as well
You are taking away the beauty of Kingscliff and around our area by putting this large over the top buildings. We are ok with 2 stories going in but it’s to much for our tiny beach side town. It’s going to be to much for the people of this area as it is ugly and going to make our area unmanage by traffic and horrible tall buildings

The no of Aged care facilities /beds in Kingscliff is grossly inadequate. This project only increases the no of residential aged care beds by 8. This project needs to significantly increase the no of residential aged care beds to cater for the aging population.
I support medium density in KIngscliff but this project should not include 3 or 4 bedroom apartments.
Any Independent living for seniors should only be 2 bedroom, should be affordable and scaled back in no to provide more aged care beds.

I object to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD-47105958) due to the following reasons:
* It is a gross overdevelopment of this flood affected site
* The proposed buildings will be at a maximum height of 16.75m above ground level. This exceeds the current building height limit in Kingscliff. ( which is 13.6m)
*Additional fill needed will further exacerbate flood issues across North Kingscliff.
* Surrounding residents will be affected by increased traffic, reduction in solar access, noise associated with deliveries.

I object to this proposal as we live right next door.
we are on 4/ 9 Lorien way and we look directly onto uniting now.
It’s ok as it is only a one storey building.
We are going to be looking straight at a 4 storey building, which really will be a five story once you back full it.
It will look very out of place in this area.
Not to mention the flood issue.
We did not buy here to do this.
I object to Lorien way being used as the assess to the site.
as it is now there is so much traffic coming and going, trying to get out of our drive way as become a hazard, once you put trucks etc during the build it’s going to get worse.
Then once it’s built it’s going to be a service entry.
I object to having the service road at our boundary fence, we live in Kingscliff for the peace and harmony, this will now go.
The noise level in our area is going to rise and impact on our health and well being.
Instead of us listening to birds and the ocean, it’s going to be trucks and cars.
We did not buy here to have this at our back door.
I object to the hours of work, we will have to shut our doors and windows for 4 yrs.
Our health will be impacted in such a big way
I already suffer from anxiety, this will escalate it.
My daughter as asthma. Now we are going to have to put air purifiers in our house because of the dust etc.

I object because of flooding in our street. Twice in the last 5 yrs we have had floods and each time the uniting area was flooded.
Once the land level is raised, where is this water going then. We have the ocean and tides to consider as well

Put very simply to approve this development is to allow developers to dictate how we live in our community.
My objections are as follows:
• Gross overdevelopment of a flood affected site;
• Building heights exceeding the town plan;
• Negative impacts on the houses surrounding the development, in terms of loss of sunlight, views, fresh air, overshadowing etc.
• Very limited additional beds for aged care than what they currently have in place now.

This is nothing more than a profit seeking luxury apartment development under the guise of aged care and seniors housing.

I object to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment ssd 47105958
~Im opposed to the height of the buildings its not in character with the town
~For the work, redevelopment and pure scale of the project i feel not enough additional extra rooms are being made available.
~I feel like its being built not for the aged care but more a over 50's retirement center.
~I dont like how overshadowed my unit will be once it has been completed.
~i dont feel like the current road infastructure will sufice both while its being built - all the big trucks, and after with additional traffic
~The dust and dirt from the build getting in to my house which is next door
~Im concerned about where the water will be diverted to when we have heavy rain fall as it sits in a flood plan area. Already we have drainage issues in the area.

I object to Uniting Kingscliff redevelopment (SSD-47105958) for the below reasons

This is overdevelopment for this flood affected site. Houses around this area have flooded numerous time and this may cause worse flooding for the area

It breaches Kingscliff building height of 13.6m and will set a precedent in the area for further over development

We don’t have adequate roads now, with so many extra residents this will cause a large amount of extra traffic around the suburban streets

This will be at odds with the low rise built environment that surrounds this area and cause loss of privacy and overshadowing to neighbouring properties

Why does this need to be so high, I understand the need for aged care in the area so make design this to meet the current building height and reduce the size of the apartments to make up for the lost level.

Move the development to our near hospital where it won’t affect neighbouring houses

Please see attached.

Although more aged care services are needed in the Kingscliff community, this project (even in its rejigged proposal) is way too big for the site. The developers assurances regarding height, flooding, evacuation plans and transport impact are simply not realistic. To take the flooding plan for example, building up the site will just transfer flooding issues to surrounding areas. And anyone in our area knows the "evacuation plan" may look fine in print but there simply wasn't enough warning during the most recent floods where so many became trapped. Putting scores of elderly people in this predicament is shameful.
The project should not be as high as proposed as it will create a precedent and imposes too much on surrounding properties.
I could support a more realistic proposal that is downsized and more respectful to the community.

I am 18 years old and I feel that my home environment will be greatly affected by this massive project. I have attached a document outlining my concerns regarding this project. Could you please take the time to read my thoughts about this re-development. Thanking you in advance.

Please read the attached document stating my objections to the Uniting Development in it's current state.

This proposed development addresses the social concerns we all have today. The increasing cost of living is mitigated by consolidating services around higher density living. The close proximity of respite and care minimises ambulance and private vehicle movements. A caring and considerate community hub already exists who have maybe raised their families and do not require dwelling and yard space we see in suburbs. The senior demographic are quieter and more respectful of their surroundings thus security would be of a lesser concern. The beach and bowling club are nearby. This retirement possibility is a game changer for us, as I have a chronic virus which requires treatment as I age.

The development is much too large for the area
Much too close to surrounding neighbours.
The entry on Kingscliff Street not much more than a lane
NO ( or not nearly enough green space

Objection to Proposed uniting care Aged Care Home redevelopment
Introduction

We, the undersigned residents of Kingscliff, submit this formal objection to the proposed construction of Uniting's age care redevelopment aged care home at Kingscliff. As a small, close-knit beachside town, Kingscliff is deeply concerned about the significant impact this development will have on our community, environment, and local infrastructure. Our objections are grounded in considerations of community character, environmental impact, infrastructure strain, and social implications.

Community Character

1. Visual Impact: The proposed Uniting's redevelopment structure is incongruent with the existing architectural style of Kingscliff, which primarily consists of low-rise buildings. This development would significantly alter the town’s skyline and visual appeal, undermining the charming, small-town atmosphere that attracts both residents and visitors.

2. Heritage and Identity: Kingscliff has a rich history and unique identity that could be compromised by the construction of such a large and modern facility. Preserving our heritage is essential for maintaining the cultural and historical fabric of our town.

Environmental Impact

1. Coastal Ecosystem: The proposed site is near sensitive coastal ecosystems. Construction and subsequent increased human activity could disrupt local wildlife habitats, cause soil erosion, and lead to potential pollution of the beach and surrounding waters.

2. Green Space Reduction: The development will result in the loss of green space, which is vital for local biodiversity and provides recreational areas for residents. This loss could also exacerbate heat island effects, impacting local microclimates.

Infrastructure Strain

1. Traffic Congestion: A redeveloped aged care home of this scale will bring a significant increase in traffic, including construction vehicles, staff, visitors, and service deliveries. Our town's narrow roads and limited parking facilities are ill-equipped to handle this surge, leading to congestion and potential safety hazards.

2. Public Services: Local services such as healthcare, emergency response, and utilities are currently operating at capacity. An influx of new residents and workers would place additional strain on these services, reducing their effectiveness and availability for existing residents.

Social Implications

1. Community Disruption: The scale of the proposed development could disrupt the tight-knit social fabric of our community. The influx of new, transient staff and visitors might erode the strong, long-standing relationships among residents.

2. Noise and Privacy: The construction phase and the ongoing operations of a large facility will generate noise, disrupting the peace and quiet that residents currently enjoy. Additionally, the height of the building could infringe on the privacy of nearby homes.



In light of these concerns, we strongly urge the council to reconsider the approval of this development. We propose that alternative solutions be explored, such as a smaller-scale facility that better integrates with the town's character and infrastructure.

We request a community meeting to discuss these issues further and explore viable alternatives that align with both the needs of our aging population and the preservation of our town’s unique qualities.

Regards Amber

I Livy James object to the Uniting Kingscliff (SSD-47105958) redevelopment Project.
What is being proposed is a gross overdevelopment in size, density, character and amenity of Kingscliff. This is nothing more than a retiree development, designed for maximum yield and maximum financial gain while under the guise of an aged care re-development project. If this project was submitted as any other normal DA, it would not be considered in its current form due to the many breaches of the Kingscliff Locality Plan. and certainly does which should never have been considered as state significant.

‘Affordable’ living is very much in doubt as the application emphasises the high-end finishes of the internal fittings, outstanding architecture etc. These special features are more associated with an upmarket, retiree sea-change resort style living, rather than any practical answer to affordable housing for aged care.

The current aged care facility has 112 RAC beds with 80 residents, approximately, with the new proposed facility having 120 beds. This is an increase of only 8 beds, which is insignificant to the overall proposal. Uniting have been misleading in saying it is an increase of 40 beds, taken from the occupied residents bed numbers, and not the true capacity of 112. Why is there not a more significant increase in the number of RAC beds? since this would reflect a more realistic requirement for future needs of the community, along with respite care…. not the addition of 199-unit retirement complex worthy of its own postcode. If this application is truly based on age- care, then an increase of only 8 RAC beds is certainly not worthy of a SSDA.

• EXCEEDS HEIGHT LIMITS-This development in its current form exceeds the Kingscliff Locality Plan height limit of 13.6m. The uniting development has a height limit of 16.75m and add to this the addition of 3m fill for ground level in some areas of the block. Throughout this DA, Uniting constantly references the number of storeys thus avoiding using the actual building height comparisons to the reader, Was this a deliberate tactic? Because you really must hunt to find the information on how their building heights compare to the Kingscliff Locality Plan. Please take my challenge and take note of this comment and try to find their height measurements.

• THE OVERALL SCALE, DENSITY AND HEIGHT OF THE BUILDINGS proposed for this site will have a both a visual and psychological impact on the immediate neighbours. Loss of aspect, diminished privacy from abundant verandas with glass doors, not to mention the lack of sunlight from shadowing. No matter what vegetation plan is submitted, none can cover nor soften these out of scale buildings. This development conflicts with the surrounding low density residential environment and will affect over 100 homes in the greater residential area.

• FLOOD RISK-Increased risk of flooding, particularly for those residents in Lorien Way, Beach Street and beyond to the west will be impacted by the excess runoff into surrounding streets due to the increased hard surface areas, raised ground level and roof top runoff from new buildings. The density of this development leaves no natural drainage of the land.

• The Uniting site was impacted by flood waters in 2022 and yet the state government flood study regarding the impact of building on flood prone land has not been released yet, nor as the Tweed Shire Council flood report and mapping been updated. In my humble opinion it would be negligent permitting a double storey, high-rise aged care home to be rebuilt, on previous flooded land, without recommendations of these essential documents being considered. (attached picture of uniting site 2022)

Picture 1. Uniting Aged Care Facility flood 2022
Picture 2. Uniting Aged Care Car Park flood 2022
Picture 3. Lorian Way main entry road into Uniting site.
When viewing these pictures please bear in mind when the block is raised and filled when will this water go. It will rise up into the surrounding homes in Drift Court and Lorian Way, following the path of least resistance. Hence my question regarding insurance below.

• Has the Australian Insurance Council been consulted regarding the viability and cost of insurance to future unit owners. Whose responsibility and liability will it be if adjacent established residences become flooded post development…. the State Government or Uniting. Surely knowing the impact in Kingscliff and specifically to the uniting site and surrounding areas being impacted by inundation of rising water and run-off in 2022, this question must be asked and answered of Uniting and the NSW Major Projects Department.

INCREASED TRAFFIC FLOW local residential streets are already struggling with the demand from the recently opened Tweed Valley Hospital. This is a concern beyond the immediate vicinity of the Uniting Kingscliff site.
• The added congestion at the Beach and Kingscliff Street roundabout could be a considered a safety concern due to the increased amount of traffic entering a small roundabout into a narrow suburban street.
• Parking issues associated with the increase in staff, administration & medical suites, approximately 398 Unit Owners, 120 aged care residents and associated visitors are genuine concerns in such a dense development.
• In regional towns public transport options are limited making car ownership essential to access services and entertainment beyond the immediate Kingscliff centre. Uniting has underestimated the number of carparks for owners, let alone staff, visitors and ancillary service providers.
The community was very clear in making this point to Uniting during consultation when their representatives thought people over 70 didn’t drive or needed cars……an ‘archaic and out of touch point of view. Therefore, any shortfall of parking spaces will be a ‘considered action’ of Uniting and excess cars will be relegated to Lorian Way and surrounding streets, despite emphasizing this issue.
• During the 4 years of construction uniting have said there will be no parking onsite for construction workers. Where are they going to park? Where are the of cement delivery trucks, where are the semi- trailers loads of fill, steel and bricks going to park if not on-site. Then the only place remains in the street, outside houses. How will the these semi-trailers and massive trucks navigate the narrow streets and roundabouts access points during 4 years of construction.
• The detrimental impact of these parts of the construction services should not be underestimated. Public buses and hospital traffic also must navigate these common roads. Until there is a transport and parking strategy….(reviewed & accepted) by local council , and in writing from Uniting, clearly outlining where constructions workers will park and how the management of traffic flow along narrow suburban streets will be handled, this application should not be considered. It is unacceptable for Uniting to say ‘we’ll work it out later’.

Our community has fought long and hard to protect the fabric of Kingscliff including being protective of our KLP, which is an important document that outlines who we are as a community and what is important to us.
There have been many new unit developments completed or in the process of being built over the last few years, all adhering to our Kingscliff Locality plan. The KLP is there for a reason, to protect our community, our neighbours, our friends, our town from overscale developments as presented here by Uniting.
We appreciate where we live, and we value the life we have. This development does not value our community, it disrespects us by removing the right for our community to make such an important decision at a local level.

I genuinely feel gutted for my fellow community members who have been so distressed since Uniting first outlined this development. Young families who have only in recent years moved into Drift Court behind the present uniting home are now faced with strangers over-looking their children and never having another private moment in their backyard because of the numerous 16.75m or thereabouts buildings with glass doors overlooking them. Now would be the time to get out the picture of this development and see just how big and imposing it is to the surrounding houses.

The psychological and emotion toll it has taken on some of community members has been over-whelming.

Long-term residents of Lorian Way are so concerned about the impacts this will have on the quality of their lives, from 4 years of construction, dust, noise, traffic and then the lifelong impact of looking and living next to such a monolith of development. The constant humming noise of massive air-conditioners all through summer, the early morning delivery trucks, the industrial bins, the constant ambient night lights required in this complex. The 24-hour cars coming and going of shift workers and 390 residents.

The community is not saying don’t develop this site. In fact, welcome the upgrade of facilities to the area but the development as it stands is wrong for all the reasons outlined above and many more. The community gave numerous ideas and feedback to uniting on the oversized scale /density of this development and not in keeping with the surrounding low-density character. Suggestions of a smaller scale facility within the limits of our KLP and that would generally be acceptable to the local residences nearby were suggested. This how-ever seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

As my final words, please consider wisely how you would feel if this development was built on top of your backyard. We are not a big city, we don’t want to become another Gold Coast. We are a close-knit community in a small coastal town, loved and appreciated by all who have the privilege to call it home.
I and the greater community implore you to not accept this application in its current form and respect our Kingscliff Locality Plan and the community

When I say I object this is not compeletley true. I am just opposed to the height of the buildings. I have a property on lorien way, and with the proposed development it will mean we loose our privacy in to our yard and lounge room. I understand that the united church aged care needs a revamp and more rooms, however i dont agree with making the buildings taller as its going to destroy the small village feel of the area. People come here for its small town charm, and by putting in these bigger buildings its going to start the rot of more bigger developments, especially with the hospital being so big. I would be happier to see another solution with larger smaller buildings, at the current three story limit.

I object to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD-47105958).
The reasons for my objection are:
• Lorien Way is not suitable for this amount of traffic.
This street consists of mainly one level houses and units with a mix of elderly and young families living here and in adjacent streets. Their children are small to teenage years and walk, run and ride their pushbikes, Ebikes and Escooters (very quickly). They also play in the streets with ball games and quite often chase their balls onto the road. Many families have dogs and walk them not always on leashes. Also there are many elderly people using assistance of some type who walk regularly.
Added to that we have approx 72 busses per day. Route 601 starts at 5.30am and finishes at 11pm. with 4 busses per hour to and from the hospital. As there are always cars parked in the street the busses often have to stop to give way to each other. We also have several school busses per day morning and afternoon.
Now we have the beginning of cars not being able to park at the hospital. The car park there is full by 8am. People are now starting to park in Lorien Way and catch the 601 bus to the hospital. It’s only a matter of time before the word spreads and it will be impossible for residents to park outside their homes. I am told that450 trades people will be using this entry. I realise they will not all be there at the one time but where are they to park?

• Only one allocated car park per ILU
In our “community consultation process” one of the consultants was heard to say “not many people over 60 drive a car”!
These units are two and three bedrooms. So in the case of two cars per unit the second car will have to park in a visitor’s car park. What about the genuine visitors? What about families coming for school and Christmas holidays, where will they park? On the street of course (if any parking is available).
This area is zoned residential and is not fit for this extremely heavy traffic.

• Increased likelihood of flooding
All the residents I speak to are absolutely terrified of the increased possibility of flooding. This area is described as flood prone and should be left as it is. We had localised flooding on our streets in 2022 and the fact that they propose to raise the land level by three meters in certain areas surely makes this area more susceptible to flooding. The actual footprint takes up nearly all of the available land leaving nowhere for rain water to go. The proposed mitigation tanks are quite inadequate. Even the developers admitted they are “pushing the can down the road” meaning they are channelling the water further up to where the Gales development has just been approved. This whole area will then be in extreme danger of future flooding.
These are our forever homes, we love living here. We want and deserve to feel safe.

• Gross over development
The sheer size of this proposal is extreme. The maximum Kingscliff height limit is 13.6m. They propose 16.75 and in certain places increasing the ground level by 3 meters to 19.75m above ground, six meters above the current limit. This proposed development will affect residents in many ways besides flooding:
• Increased noise and light
• Overshadowing possibly on solar panels
• Lack of sea breezes
• Privacy issues
• Lack of available residential parking

Not only the local residents will be affected by this construction. Already the Woolworths car park is inadequate. This will most likely add at least 160 cars to the Kingscliff area. The increased hospital traffic is now noticeable at the shopping centre with staff and visitors shopping there.
I agree that the aged care facility does need upgrading but he addition of only eight extra beds is not good enough. Preference should be given to this issue but not this type of greedy construction .
They are selling these ILUs on the impression of a caring tri-care community. It is not. These ILUs are to be marketed at $1M+ which at that price will only be affordable to the wealthy retirees just as any other beach side apartment block.

Roslyn Gouldthorpe

Uniting Submission

I firmly object to the bulk and scale of this development. This is a gross overdevelopment of this battle axe, land locked block in a small coastal town. This is going to have such a devastating impact on this village and especially my family as residents here. This battle axe block is surrounded by Beach Street, Drift court, with entrance from Kingscliff Street (near the Beach Street roundabout) A second driveway in Lorien Way – practically across from my home.

I vigorously object to the building height. Kingscliff’s current building height is 13.6 m above ground level. This proposal is increasing this to 16.75 m which will be higher than this once ground filled before build. As I was not permitted to build a designed car port on my property – grounds given would change the aesthetics of the Street then What on earth is this gross over development going to do???? This is so unjust. This massive proposed construction is completely out of character with the surrounding homes and Kingscliff Coastal village.

I firmly object to the filling in of the site. In 2022 water came up into our Streets to a height never seen before. The impact of infill and covering of more drainage land with this massive build and concrete will just worsen the flooding impact in Kingscliff area. This is a major worrying concern. To cause flood free residents to become prone to flooding (what a worry) through increase run off would be a disaster.

I object to the increase in Traffic and noise in Lorien Way and Beach Street. The increase in traffic not just suburban cars but major sized trucks such as delivery and garbage trucks increase buses also visitors and staff making the streets more dangerous. At present even without this increase drivers need to stop to allow safe travel for buses to pass when cars stationary parked either side of Beach Street and Lorien Way, cars need to park illegally now on the nature strips to allow for this as these suburban Streets not designed for the buses and larger trucks massive increase will be detrimental to all.

I object to what will be an overflow of parking that will occur in these already heavily congested residential streets. The overflow will occur with our ageing population. This no more than a luxury apartment development under the guise of aged care and senior housing.

As the development will be imposing itself upon an existing and harmonious housing community, I am concerned that the plan for a towering 4 story development will take away from the existing village feel of Kingscliff.
The volume of traffic on the already highly utilised Pearl Street (which I live on) that this development will add to will be be additionally intrusive and create further road infrastructure issues for locals e.g existing pothole deterioration and potential new issues. This development plan places no consideration regarding its impact on an already high traffic area, let alone the potential for flooding particularly around Lorian St ad Drift Crescent.

I object to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD-47105958).
* This 16.75m development is an over development, that will be 3.15m above the current legal Kingscliff height level of 13.6m. This development cannot be even considered, when it does not comply with the Kingscliff legal building requirement?
* If allowed, this over development will set a precedence for further over development of Kingscliff.
*If allowed, my greatest concern is that this raised development, will cause greater flood issue to my investment property situated in the flood zone at 34 Ocean St, Kingscliff 2487. The water level from the most recent flooding event was only 50cm from destroying the property.
* This over development is against the character of Kingscliff & will be a gross eyesore from my premise at 15 Kingscliff St, 2487.
* This over development will not generate the extra beds required, so it cannot be justified!
* This over development is a blatant attempt to create apartment living, justified as nursing care.
*Uniting needs to construct this complex as per Australian standards & within Tweed Shire Council guidelines as to not receive any objections by local residents.