Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment

I object to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD-47105958) by the Uniting Aged Care application.
As a 70-year-old retiree who has called this beautiful area home for decades, I feel compelled to voice my concerns about the proposed redevelopment. The sheer scale of this project is not in harmony with the aesthetics of our local area. Kingscliff is known for its charming, low-rise buildings that blend seamlessly with the natural surroundings, and this development would drastically alter that character.
The Kingscliff Locality Plan: Volume 3 - Development Control Plan (pt4) Section 4.3.4 LEP Considerations clearly states the intention to "facilitate the rezoning of the western side of Kingscliff Street from R2 Low Density Residential to R3 Medium Density Residential to allow a greater range of medium density housing types with a building height limit of 9m." The redevelopment proposes a maximum height of 16.75 meters above ground level, which is almost double the stipulated height limit. This blatant disregard for the established guidelines is alarming and unacceptable.
One of my primary concerns is the impact on privacy for the residents of properties backing onto the proposed development. The towering height of 16.75 meters will significantly compromise the privacy that we currently enjoy. It is distressing to think that our private backyards will be overlooked by such a high structure, leading to a loss of the peaceful and private atmosphere we cherish.
Moreover, the local area traffic will inevitably increase, leading to a diminished quality of living for the residents of Kingscliff Street and surrounding streets. Other local redevelopments have been designed to encourage family environments, resulting in more children in the area. This redevelopment, however, will exacerbate traffic congestion and increase the risk of accidents, particularly affecting the safety of children who now play in our streets.
The redevelopment proposes over 200 residences for retirees waiting for aged care spaces, yet only offers an additional 8 residential aged care spaces. This creates a scenario where "cashed up" retirees, who do not yet need aged care, can buy into the development, effectively turning it into a "time share" retirement village. This approach does not meet the actual needs of our local aging population, who require more immediate and accessible aged care facilities.
Furthermore, the proposed redevelopment site will be a commercial premises, necessitating all aspects of business operations, including shift changes, maintenance, deliveries, and mechanical equipment. This will significantly impact the quality of living for current, established homeowners. The noise, traffic, and disruption associated with these operations will erode the tranquillity and comfort that we currently enjoy in our homes.
It is also worth noting that the Uniting Church signed up to the Aged Care Voluntary Industry Code of Practice in January 2021. The Number 1 key principle of this Code of Practice is "Consumer-led and community shared values." The proposed redevelopment does not align with this principle, as it fails to reflect the shared values and concerns of our community. Instead of enhancing our community, it threatens to disrupt and diminish the quality of life for existing residents.
In conclusion, I urge the NSW Government to listen to the concerns and fears of the local community. This proposed redevelopment is not in line with the character of Kingscliff, it disregards established guidelines, and it does not meet the needs of our aging population. I hope that our voices will be heard, and that the government will take action to protect the integrity and liveability of our cherished neighbourhood.
Thank you for considering our concerns and taking the time to listen to the voices of the community.

1. Lorien Way is a designated flood area by Tweed Council. If this project is allowed to continue many houses in t6the local area will be flooded.
2. The maximum current height of buildings allowed by Tweed Council is 13.6 metres. This building will exceed this hight by 3.15 metres, thereby completely altering the "village atmosphere” that presently exists.
3. This building is masquerading as a facility for aged care and affordable living units for the elderly, which it most certainly is not! It is in fact a commercial development for rich people who wish to live by the sea in very comfortable surroundings.
4. Lorien Way and adjacent streets are already burdened with parked vehicles which make driving hazardous. The heavy traffic involved in this development and the inevitable parking problem;ems thereafter will lead to accidents.

I object to the filling and building on this land. In 2022, our street had water from the floods after never having had water problems before. If the project goes ahead, this will increase our chance of flooding.

I object to the height of these buildings. Houses in our street are all one storey, whereas this development wants to go 4 stories high plus basement parking … 5 stories in total.

The increased volume of traffic on our residential roads will cause major traffic problems. Lorien Way is on our local bus route and is already heavily congested.

Where are all the construction people going to park ??

In closing, we feel this is a gross overdevelopment for a residential area and it is now going from primarily being a nursing home to a retirement village.

1. Flooding concerns - the site was full of water during the recent floods, pooling storm water. Our house built in 2016 was built to a specific height to be flood safe in accordance with council regulations. Raising the height of the existing ground level posses unacceptable flood risk to existing houses.
2. Sunlight and privacy concerns - the proposed development is too high and out of character for the existing single and double storey homes part of this small coastal community. As a single storey dwelling, a building of up to 13.6 metres high and four times as high as ours will tower over our property unfairly casting shade and giving residents direct view into our property. We purchased this block and designed the house in 2018 to take advantage of the natural sunlight and the open western view which will be completely ruined and replaced with many balconies facing directly at our yard. All the residents that are eastern facing apart from the bottom floor will have a full view of our backyard, kitchen, dining and living room and also either side of our house interfering with our quiet enjoyment of the property and children playing in the backyard. Also likely to shadow our solar panels on our roof and the loss of internal sunlight that currently drenches our kitchen living and dining areas, the most used rooms of the house. It is unconscionable and infringes upon or rights to privacy and quiet enjoyment of our property without interference. It also poses child protection issues with people viewing our children in their safe space.
3. Unethical and breach of good faith. Uniting during "consultation" refused to conduct a site line study on our single level property, arguably one of the most detrimentally effected properties, but preferred to use the two storey neighbour next door. The would not step over the fence to consider our view despite us sending photos of how badly we would be affected. additionally, our alfresco area was also left off the inital plans, conveniently minimising the impact of shadowing on our property.

I am writing in strong objection to the proposed uniting development which is abnormally oversized and is clearly NOT designed to house ONLY aged citizens like uniting proposes.
The sheer size and height of this development, perched right in the middle of residents houses will be overlooking backyards and into living rooms and bedrooms
it is just so wrong and does not fit the kingscliff community and existing infrastructure.

Size- The size of four storeys is out of character for the existing dwellings, ours being single storey with no chance of privacy from overlooking balconies.

Purpose - The development under the guise of aged care is mearly luxury appartments for wealthy retiries and does not service those in need. With only 8 beds added to the existing aged care facility this is not a non-profit development for the church, it is unconscionable and unethical.

Traffic and noise pollution - the surrounding homes are quiet family homes. Up to six years of construction would be detrimental to the health and safe of the community and overide any rights to the quiet enjoyment of our home without interference. Access onto the highway would be gridlocked, as the quiet residential area is not equipped for a mega structure. The location is wholly inappropriate.

Flooding - is one of the most significant concerns from this proposed development. The area is a storm water catchment with it filled with water during the recent floods. Anyone with common sense would deem it an unsuitable location. Again unconscionable.

Lack of genuine community consultation - despite repeated requests uniting would not complete a visual impact study on our properly and refused to act in good fair. As a single story dwelling with our living area and backyard facing west directly towards all of the proposed balconies we have no hope of any privacy. The shadow drawing provided conveniently left off our alfresco area on the plans to downplay/diguise the impact the building would have to restricting sunlight to our property nor any consideration of our solar panels, negatively affecting our quality of life and right to privacy.

Other objections include:

1. Its a family residential area that is quiet and safe
2. We currently have privacy in our living room and in our backyard area for my family
3. We currently have a nice western aspect/view of trees other houses and some sky like houses in residential areas should
4. We currently believe that we are flood safe even though the water rose up from the current ground level behind us to within easy reach of our back fence prior.
5. We have afternoon sunlight into our living room and yard onto our plants and gardens, and drying washing.
6. We currently have ample sunlight hours throughout the afternoon for solar panels and heating.

please find attatched photos of how the development will affect my living room and kitchen aswell as my entire backyard. A drone was used to get the correct height of the proposed development

I attend events at the Uniting Church hall in Kingscliff every week.
At present the residential accommodation attached to the hall is low rise,unobtrusive and providing essential aged care. It is a boon for the area.
I would support a development of this facility if it remained within the existing maximum height for the area of 13.6 metres.
In addition it must be a facility which offers predominantly residential aged care spaces.
At present the application offers just EIGHT additional residential aged care spaces with the rest going to high end apartments. This is totally un acceptable.
The height of the development must be reduced to fit with the amenity of the area and offer predominantly residential aged care spaces.
Please consider my submission and my objections to this development.
Thank you
Jennifer Harvie

I strongly object to DA SSD-47105958. Please find attached my detailed objections.

There is not enough parking now in Kingscliff both at the beach and Woolworths
We have had four years of traffic disruptions due to the building of the hospital and this is still ongoing
We pay high rates and yet the whole ambience of Kingscliff as a village is fast disappearing!
This will not solve the housing crisis as only people with significant money will be able to afford these “Senior Living Apartments”
If we have further high rainfall it could possibly severely impact the surrounding residents
The roads are full of potholes now and can’t handle current traffic - what would it be like with another potentially 199 cars!
Stop turning Kingscliff into a Byron and. Noosa!

I object to the project based on the potential to exacerbate flooding in the area. I also object to the proposed height of the buildings as they will tower above the surrounding houses, Kingscliff has a 3 storey height restriction and if this is allowed it will create the precedent for further developments above the 3 storey limit which will denigrate the local amenity. Further Pearl Street is already at capacity and in very poor condition, the construction of this complex will cause awe full traffic movements both in terms of heavy vehicle movements during construction but also with the trade staff building the complex in terms of vehicle movements and unpalatable parking arrangements. This facility would be better collocated on land adjacent to the new hospital. I strongly urge the assessing body to not approve this development in its current form and not allow high development in Kingscliff above 3 storeys. We do not want gold coast style development in the Tweed Shire.

I object to the current proposal. It is too dense and the height is above that of the other residents in the area. I believe, having had parents in their 90’s who were still driving a car. There is not enough parking for those who still drive. Also my mum is now in Opal tweed valley care at Florence place tweed heads and the parking situation for visitors has been horrendous. It is very difficult to find a park when visiting and often had to park as far away as the mall. There needs to be adequate parking spaces for visitors and staff. With the current situation with parking at the new tweed hospital I would expect this be a priority. The size of the development is far too large for the area where it is placed.
I would support a smaller project with ample parking and gardens for the residents . My elderly mother often complains about not having enough outdoor areas at Opal care. It is also unfair to have the buildings shade the existing residents homes and encroach on their backyards . I fully support the uniting church having been a member in the blue mountains for many years but this projects is far too large. I also have concerns of water runoff creating flooding of existing streets .i have just bought in kingscliff and was unaware of this development until a few weeks ago. I was looking for a quiet street that would not be impacted by noise and am now concerned about truck noise and digging etc while the building is being done. Flying dust and any other excess dust from other work is a concern for me.
I would like a reply to my comments please.

I strongly object as the traffic and parking in this immediate area is already more than acceptable. It is also a flood area which if built up will affect homes in the vicinity mine included. Please reconsider this proposal.

I OBJECT TO THIS PROPOSAL VERY STRONGLY - AN ABSOLUTE OVER KILL FOR AREA.
1. not suitable for such large redevelopment on this parcel of land.
2. road access extremely poor even with a second access driveway from Lorian Way.
3. this land floods and although I note application will require fill up to 3m, will cause worse flooding in surrounding properties.
4. currently the building height restriction is 3 stories, so will set precedent for 4 stories in area.
5. parking will be huge problem, as streets are currently full of parked cars now.
6. understand we need more nursing home care in the suburb, but this huge development will also be mainly for independent retirees. I am informed only 8 extra beds for aged care.
7. Consider the effect it will have on surrounding existing homes - affect sun on solar systems, many will be in constant shadow, noise of huge increase in number of cars to area, hugely devalue their building.
8. rediculous number of people living in this small pocket of land surrounded by majority of single storied homes.

I object to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD-47105958). This development is couched as an increase in aged care beds, however the main purpose is a profit making development of apartments for wealthy retirees, attempting to bypass the usual parking requirements and strongly supported height limits of the area. The Uniting church do not currently routinely fill the nursing home beds they already have on the site, and we would welcome far more than the 8 actual additional nursing home beds if the State were to enforce Uniting to have these available for occupancy.
I strongly object to the grossly excessive apartment overdevelopment which is a conflict with the surrounding low rise homes and modest 3 story apartment heights, will require more than 3m of landfill in some areas which will certainly exacerbate the grievous flood issues we experience in Kingscliff/Chinderah, will severely impact privacy of surrounding existing homes and will not provide the community with any improvement in meeting the genuine care needs of our aged and infirm population. The community consultation performed by Uniting was simply a cynical check box exercise, with the raised concerns largely ignored by Uniting.
I urge you not to support this project, and to force Uniting to instead design and implement a substantial genuine increase in high level care beds and supported accommodation which is sensitive to the surrounding neighborhoods, and which will not worsen the flood risk to others.

I object to this proposal due to:
* this being a gross overdevelopment of the site which will have a severe impact on the surrounding area, local neighbourhood and infrastructure.
* this already being a flood prone site after rains, I am concerned about the significant increase in local flooding, due to the site levels being raised by 3.8m prior to any construction. With nowhere for the water to go, the surrounding streets will be heavily impacted with streets experiencing flooding and potentially affecting building insurance premiums.
* this development will generate an excessive amount of traffic, not only in Kingscliff St and Lorien Way but to Kingscliff as a whole. Lorien Way is a high traffic zone and experiences traffic incidents on a regular basis; the additional traffic will only make it dangerous for commuters and pedestrian traffic.
* the four storey height in a low density area, low-rise residential neighbourhood which is out of character with the local area; this exceeds local development compliance
* Uniting is pushing this development under the guise of it being an aged care facility when it actually a high-end apartment living for retirees...not affordable senior's housing.

Objection to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD-47105958)**

Let’s not beat around the bush, this development is a unit development disguised as an aged care facility. The developers aim to sneak in a unit development and avoid many of the developmental approvals required. Under the guise of an aged care facility, the developers want to avoid the normal requirements of a unit development.

The existing aged care facility has 112 designated aged care beds. The new proposal only increases these bed numbers by eight bringing it up to120. The other 199 units (units not beds) are a mixture of one, two and three bedroom units.

Uniting has not presented any proposal on the costing structure of the aged care beds and the unit development. If they are providing affordable independent housing for aged residents then let them show us the costing structures and purchasing options.

This is not an aged care facility, this is a unit development and I object to this development.

**Summary of Concerns:**
1. **Overdevelopment and Inconsistency with Local Character:** The proposed redevelopment, with buildings up to 16.75 meters above ground level, exceeds Kingscliff’s current building height limit of 13.6 meters. This significant increase in height is out of character with the surrounding low-rise homes and the general aesthetic of Kingscliff.

It is also in conflict with the Kingscliff Locality Plan. This plan was developed after much community consultation unlike the consultation which was not undertaken to community expectations by the Uniting Aged Care development team.

In regards to the Kingscliff Local Plan, the Uniting Age Care development exceeds height limits of the current building height of 13.6m to 16.75 metres. It does not meet the character of the community especially in the immediate locale as the homes are low rise.

It would be a behemoth and create shadowing, privacy and functional issues (solar access, traffic) for existing homes who have built there in good faith that their lifestyle would remain relatively consistent and not subject to such a large development on their doorstep.

2. **Flood Risk and Environmental Impact:** If the NSW Planning department hadn’t noticed, there was a rather large flood in the Northern Rivers area in early 2022 and much of the surrounding area for the proposed development was flooded.

The Tweed Shore Council is undertaking a flood survey which is not yet completed. How can this development be proposed without knowing the findings of this flood study? How can the NSW Government approve a development of this size and complexity without all the information it requires? There is duty of care to older vulnerable residents to not put them in harms way by building on a flood plain/low lying area.

There is also a duty of care to ensure any development does not risk flooding of existing dwellings. If this behemoth is built and the land raised by three metres in some areas, then where does the flood water go? If the 2022 floods taught us one thing, a flood reach cannot be accurately predicted but certainly obvious actions can be undertaken for example, not building on low lying land, not raising low lying land and displacing flood water in an already compromised flood plain.

This government has to consider existing residents and not place others in the path of destruction, heart break and loss of value of their home.

This environmental impact is a major concern for the community.

3. **Traffic and Accessibility Issues:** The development will significantly increase traffic, as it is categorized as ‘Traffic Generating Development.’ This increase in traffic on local roads will lead to congestion and accessibility issues for all residents in Kingscliff

The development proposal states that the build will take four years and provides no parking for construction workers. This will clog up the streets and have a flow on affect to the surrounding streets. The traffic flow, roads and road condition and maintenance within Kingscliff is already under pressure. The construction and day to day running of this unit development will increase the pressure on the already struggling road infrastructure.

Entry and exit to Kingscliff has only two major routes: from the north along Kingscliff Street/ Pearl Street, the other is along Cudgen Road which now incorporates traffic from the new hospital, the TAFE and high school plus general traffic leaving Kingscliff and Salt via Viking Street/McPhail Avenue. The entry and exit roads already suffer from congestion and the unit development would add significant pressure to this as these same roads will be access for the development.

4. **Negative Impact on Local Amenity:** The development will negatively affect the privacy, solar access, and overall amenity of surrounding residents. Issues include:
- Overlooking of outdoor areas, living spaces, and bedrooms.
- Reduction in solar access and increased overshadowing.
- Added traffic and congestion.
- Loss of view and aspect.
- Lights shining into homes.
- Noise from deliveries, shift changes, communal spaces, and mechanical equipment, both day and night.

5. **Community Consultation Process:** There is concern that the community consultation process conducted by Uniting did not adequately address the concerns raised by local residents, and may have been merely a formality rather than a genuine effort to engage with community feedback.

**Conclusion:**
This unit development is in conflict with the character, fabric, amenity, and liveability of Kingscliff and I object to the destruction of our community that would occur if this development proceeds.

Objection to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD-47105958)**

This development is a unit development disguised as an aged care facility. The developers aim to sneak in a unit development and avoid many of the developmental approvals required. Under the guise of an aged care facility, the developers want to avoid the normal requirements of a unit development.

The existing aged care facility has 112 designated aged care beds. The new proposal only increases these bed numbers by eight bringing it up to120. The other 199 units (units not beds) are a mixture of one, two and three bedroom units.

Uniting has not presented any proposal on the costing structure of the aged care beds and the unit development. If they are providing affordable independent housing for aged residents then let them show us the costing structures and purchasing options.

This is not an aged care facility, this is a unit development and I object to this development.

**Summary of Concerns:**
1. **Overdevelopment and Inconsistency with Local Character:** The proposed redevelopment, with buildings up to 16.75 meters above ground level, exceeds Kingscliff’s current building height limit of 13.6 meters. This significant increase in height is out of character with the surrounding low-rise homes and the general aesthetic of Kingscliff.

It is also in conflict with the Kingscliff Locality Plan. This plan was developed after much community consultation unlike the consultation which was not undertaken to community expectations by the Uniting Aged Care development team.

In regards to the Kingscliff Local Plan, the Uniting Age Care development exceeds height limits of the current building height of 13.6m to 16.75 metres. It does not meet the character of the community especially in the immediate locale as the homes are low rise.

It would be a behemoth and create shadowing, privacy and functional issues (solar access, traffic) for existing homes who have built there in good faith that their lifestyle would remain relatively consistent and not subject to such a large development on their doorstep.

2. **Flood Risk and Environmental Impact:** The Tweed Shore Council is undertaking a flood survey which is not yet completed. How can this development be proposed without knowing the findings of this flood study? How can the NSW Government approve a development of this size and complexity without all the information it requires? There is duty of care to older vulnerable residents to not put them in harms way by building on a flood plain/low lying area.

There is also a duty of care to ensure any development does not risk flooding of existing dwellings. If this behemoth is built and the land raised by three metres in some areas, then where does the flood water go? If the 2022 floods taught us one thing, a flood reach cannot be accurately predicted but certainly obvious actions can be undertaken for example, not building on low lying land, not raising low lying land and displacing flood water in an already compromised flood plain.

This government has to consider existing residents and not place others in the path of destruction, heart break and loss of value of their home.

This environmental impact is a major concern for the community.

3. **Traffic and Accessibility Issues:** The development will significantly increase traffic, as it is categorized as ‘Traffic Generating Development.’ This increase in traffic on local roads will lead to congestion and accessibility issues for all residents in Kingscliff

The development proposal states that the build will take four years and provides no parking for construction workers. This will clog up the streets and have a flow on affect to the surrounding streets. The traffic flow, roads and road condition and maintenance within Kingscliff is already under pressure. The construction and day to day running of this unit development will increase the pressure on the already struggling road infrastructure.

Entry and exit to Kingscliff has only two major routes: from the north along Kingscliff Street/ Pearl Street, the other is along Cudgen Road which now incorporates traffic from the new hospital, the TAFE and high school plus general traffic leaving Kingscliff and Salt via Viking Street/McPhail Avenue. The entry and exit roads already suffer from congestion and the unit development would add significant pressure to this as these same roads will be access for the development.

4. **Negative Impact on Local Amenity:** The development will negatively affect the privacy, solar access, and overall amenity of surrounding residents. Issues include:
- Overlooking of outdoor areas, living spaces, and bedrooms.
- Reduction in solar access and increased overshadowing.
- Added traffic and congestion.
- Loss of view and aspect.
- Lights shining into homes.
- Noise from deliveries, shift changes, communal spaces, and mechanical equipment, both day and night.

5. **Community Consultation Process:** There is concern that the community consultation process conducted by Uniting did not adequately address the concerns raised by local residents, and may have been merely a formality rather than a genuine effort to engage with community feedback.

**Conclusion:**
This unit development is in conflict with the character, fabric, amenity, and liveability of Kingscliff and I object to the destruction of our community that would occur if this development proceeds.

I would personally like to object to the application Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD-47810598) by Uniting Aged Care and the following reasons are my personal concerns –
.. the gross overdevelopment of this flood affected site
.. the planned maximum height of 16.75m above ground level
.. the current Kingscliff’s building height is 13.6m above ground level and therefore exceeds this
.. the additional fill will be added to raise the site by more than 3 metres in some places hence
further exacerbating flood issues across many areas
.. the further traffic impact on the existing site which is already causing concerns
.. the planned redevelopment will be completely out of character with surrounding homes and
Kingscliff generally
.. the negative impacts on the amenity and liveability for surrounding residents and their families
.. the proposed development in its current form will not meet the needs of the ageing population in
Kingscliff
.. the proposed site will further impact traffic congestion already being experienced.
I do not feel that Uniting’s community consultation process did not consider residents concerns at all and they simply overlooked the concerns and knowledge of the residents of what our area needs.
I realise and understand that there is a need for this type of residential care but feel and wish that further consultation be considered and respected to fit in with the existing residents, their concerns and their rights as community members.
Surely Uniting can work in with the local residents and community to come to an agreeable solution to provide this aged care facility without disrupting the existing residents and community in general and more importantly fit in with the existing height restrictions all other developments have had to adhere to.

I Object to Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD-47810598) on the following grounds:

1. Maximum Height of 17.75m above ground level is 3.15 metres above current maximum height allowed for all other multi-story development in Kingscliff. Giving special dispensation to Uniting will open this height increase to all future development.
2. The use of fill to raise ground level by up to 3 metres will have significant impact on existing surrounding flood levels. This block is in the critical flood area between the river marshlands and the coast.
3. The Bulk and scale of the development on a site with limited access will have significant impact on already overstretched infrastructure (roads, drainage etc).
4. Limited allowances for resident vehicle parking will exacerbate the existing problems with street parking throughout the village.
5. Scale of the development will require the site to be an industrial site for an extended period of time (6 days per week) - noise, dust, unknown individuals, unknown numbers of extra vehicles in already crowded parking space etc; impacting on quality of life for existing residents.
6. Kingscliff’s road network is already too narrow and road maintenance is a major issue. An increase in traffic associated with the initial construction and ongoing increase in population density can only make this worse.

I wish to lodge my object to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD-47105958).
The size and scale of the proposal is grossly oversized for the current site. The proposal of five new buildings at a height exceeding all other buildings in Kingscliff (with the exception of the Tweed Valley Hospital) is completely out of sync with the surrounding homes and general character of Kingscliff. The increase in noise, traffic, flood pressure will significantly and negatively impact both the surrounding residents, homes, and the wider Kingscliff community.
At a (total) height of 16.75m above surrounding homes the proposed buildings will have many negative impacts for the current residents including:
• The reduction in privacy with buildings overlooking outdoor areas, children’s play areas and bedrooms.
• Overshadowing of homes, restricting sunlight and solar access.
• The loss of view and aspect.
The additional noise from SIX YEARS of construction with construction hours of 7am to 6pm M-F and 8 am to 1pm Saturday in addition to the noise generated from deliveries, mechanical equipment and light pollution will heavily impact of the livability and mental health of surrounding residents.
The proposal also includes the main access to the site to be moved from the current access of 24 Kingscliff street to the small, narrow residential street of Lorien Way Kingscliff. To facilitate the change of access, 4 well appointed homes will be demolished (see attached photo) displacing families currently living there. These photos also depict the style and character of surrounding homes.
The new proposed access via Beach Street and Lorien Way, both of which are small, narrow residential streets will NOT support the increased traffic, parking, servicing of such a large development. As an example please see the attached photo showing the difficulty the public busses currently have navigating narrow residential streets. The current roads and infrastructure will simply not support construction trucks, delivery vehicles, increased staff, resident and visitor vehicular traffic.
In addition, the filling of the current site will put additional flood pressure of the surrounding areas. The proposed site is a flood storage area, see attached photo. It is proposed this land will be filled to 3.8 meters above sea level placing further pressure of an already vulnerable surrounding areas. This is in direct conflict with The NSW State Disaster Mitigation Plan strategic planning controls, which include recommendations “to prohibit development Of (residential dwellings or residential care facilities) from being approved on land that has particular characteristics. This can include, for example, being positioned in a floodway or having a certain bush fire attack rating.” State_Disaster_Mitigation_Plan_Full_Version_0.pdf (nsw.gov.au)
Even now it is difficult and expensive to obtain flood insurance for existing surrounding properties with many insurance companies refusing to insure properties at any cost and further filling of flood storage areas would only exacerbate this. Please see quote attached.
The proposal also does NOT significantly increase the number of aged care beds from the current facility. It does however severely denigrate the surrounding area, heavily impacting the quality of life, well being and metal health of the current residents of the small, quiet residential area in the immediate area of he proposal.
Your genuine consideration of the above objection, the lives and well being of residents of the Kingscliff community is appreciated.
Kind Regards
Maree Keyte
7Channel place
Kingscliff NSW 2487

I object to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD-47105958). I have owned property in Kingscliff since 1990 and lived here for the last 6.5 years and from the plans I have seen of the proposed redevelopment, the buildings size does not fit with the character of Kingscliff town and is in complete contrast with the many surrounding low set houses surrounding the site.
I object to how big this redevelopment will be as it is going to have immense impacts on our community in future floods. In 2022 the redevelopment site was flooded with water and houses in surrounding streets narrowly avoided water entering their homes. It is concerning that if this large redevelopment goes ahead, the water that flooded the site is going to be going into the surrounding streets and having a hugely negative impact on the Kingscliff community in any future floods.