Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment

I object to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD-47105958). I have seen the pictures of the proposed development, and the size of this redevelopment would not fit in with the rest of Kingscliff. This redevelopment would not fit within our little beach town and it appears that it will go over the current building heights and definitely look very out of place between the surrounding houses. I object because of the impact that it would have on traffic on streets surrounding the site that are already very busy is concerning.
I object to how big this redevelopment will be as it is going to have big impacts on our community in future floods. We had a flood in 2022 that covered the redevelopment site in water and the surrounding streets were also flooded with water. It is very concerning that if this large redevelopment goes ahead, that water needs somewhere to go and that would lead to the surrounding streets and Kingscliff area having houses flood that have previously never flooded.
I object to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment for the above reasons. I have lived here for the last 6.5 years and owned property here since 1990. The appeal of moving here was the quiet, relaxed beachy vibe of the community and part of that is the low set buildings. This big redevelopment that is proposed would not fit in with the current character of Kingscliff and the concern about future flood impacts is to big to ignore.

I object to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD4710598) because:-
The current development is medium to high density in a low density area.
This proposed access to the site in Lorien Way is unacceptable. The increased
traffic will impact the safety of the neighbourhood that has a high population of elderly and children.
The proposed development does not meet the needs of the community in aged care. It does not provide enough additional beds for the future.
Increased traffic and parking issues during and after construction will have a significant impact on the neighbourhood. It will upset their current lifestyle and cause distress.
The impact of the construction of such a huge development in a residential community could cause health problems to the neighbouring residents.
The current height of the development is not within Kingscliff's current building
height of 13.6m.

I object to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD4710598) because:-
The current development is medium to high density in a low density area.
This proposed access to the site in Lorien Way is unacceptable. The increased
traffic will impact the safety of the neighbourhood that has a high population of elderly and children.
The proposed development does not meet the needs of the community in aged care. It does not provide enough additional beds for the future.
Increased traffic and parking issues during and after construction will have a significant impact on the neighbourhood. It will upset their current lifestyle and cause distress.
The impact of the construction of such a huge development in a residential community could cause health problems to the neighbouring residents.
The current height of the development is not within Kingscliff's current building
height of 13.6m.

I object to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD4710598) because:-
The current development is medium to high density in a low density area.
This proposed access to the site in Lorien Way is unacceptable. The increased
traffic will impact the safety of the neighbourhood that has a high population of elderly and children.
The proposed development does not meet the needs of the community in aged care. It does not provide enough additional beds for the future.
Increased traffic and parking issues during and after construction will have a significant impact on the neighbourhood. It will upset their current lifestyle and cause distress.
The impact of the construction of such a huge development in a residential community could cause health problems to the neighbouring residents.
The current height of the development is not within Kingscliff's current building
height of 13.6m.

I object to this project on a number of grounds. Details of my objections can be found in the attached document. In short, I think Kingscliff deserves much better than what is proposed by Uniting Kingscliff.
PLEASE READ THE FULL ATTACHMENT.
Thank you
Helen Edwards-Davis

SSD UNITING KINGSCLIFF DEVELOPMENT. SSD 47105958
ROBIN O’ROURKE, POTTSVILLE
I wish to lodge an objection against the Uniting development proposed in Kingscliff.
I live at Pottsville Beach, approximately 20 klms south of Kingscliff.
You may be wondering why I am interested..well, let me tell you.
I am becoming increasingly alarmed at these sorts of developments cropping up along the coastline, seemingly with no oversight as to the overall impact. If these sorts of developments, which seem targeted at the wealthy, are allowed to be built, then before long, we will have no Northern Rivers coastline worth visiting. It will become nothing but a Concrete Corridor.

The development proposed for Kingscliff is entirely inappropriate in both size, and scale, but most importantly, placement. If it was located on the edge of the town with street frontage on a main road, then MAYBE it could be justified. In its current location, the development will dwarf the surrounding homes, place pressure on local traffic and infrastructures, and will diminish the character of the local area. They could halve the size of the proposal, and STILL deliver an extra 100 new homes! Does this mean that in the future a similar development would be allowed in Pottsville? If that is what Uniting propose for the township of Kingscliff, what will they present elsewhere along our coastline? Who is looking at the bigger picture and checking on the overall levels of development
It is a shame that a determination as to whether the proposal is permitted or not, will be made by a department a thousand kilometres away, by people who live in major capital city that is worlds away from the place we live. Our area attracts tourists who come precisely because it offers a break from their urban lifestyles dominated by busy roads, high rise buildings, and the crush of a large population. If this sort of development is permitted, then we will end up no different from the Gold Coast, and that would be a travesty.

I fully support the project as I rightfully think the aged population in the tweed really need such projects.

I strongly object to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD-47105958).
The proposed redevelopment of the existing single level existing aged care facility is far too big and completely out of character with the surrounding homes and Kingscliff generally.
The construction of the multiple multi story apartment blocks is at odds with the character and low rise build environment in the neigbouring streets surrounding the site and the proposed multi story buildings will have a negative affect on the amenity and liveability for all of the existing residents in these single level dwellings.
Privacy will be negatively impacted with people overlooking and peering down from the proposed multiple level apartment blocks. Reduction in solar panel access, and shading of existing clothesline areas will also be negatively impacted.
Traffic congestion and traffic noise in currently quiet residential streets such as Lorien Way will be significanlty increased due to the access driveway being built along Lorien Way by the removal of two exisiting residential properties. Residents close to the entry way will be negatively affected by a constant stream of traffic entering the site not only during contruction but once the facility is opened. Noise associated with deliveries to the site, garbage and service vehicles entering and existing the site, staff entering and exiting the site, as well as ambulances - day and night will negatively impact current residents of Lorien Way. Parking will overflow onto the streets and residents will not even be able to park in front of their own homes. We just have to look at the parking issues at the newly opened Tweed Valley Hospital as an example to see the parking issues that will be caused.
My husband and I purchased our home in Lorien Way due to the quiet street, and single level homes - this is what appealed to us to want to live in this area. We have raised our young family here and we are constantly walking and riding our bikes along Lorien Way with our kids, as it is a quiet, flat, kid and family friendly street. If this proprosed redevelopment goes through, our lives will be negatively affected and the safety of our children compromised due to the increased traffic along Lorien Way. Our lifestyle and comfort in our own home will also be negatively impacted due to our loss of privacy due to the obtrusive nature of the multiple high rise buildings overlooking our home, our front yard, our clothesline, our bedroom windows, our driveway - all of our privacy will be completely stripped away from us and will will have people constantly peering down on us. Not to mention having to look at the ghastly buildings whenever we look outside of our windows, go in our driveway, or play in the yard with our kids.
It was also disappointing to see that the community consultation process that took place was so poorly run and did not accurately take note of the neigbouring landowners / occupiers concerns.

Bewing an older person I feel a multistorey nursing home and senior living facility is ridiculous. I have been in a multistorey building where a fire alarm has gone off and was asked to evacuate. My wife and I were scared as hell as we were trying to navigate stairs whilst younger people rushed down. This was extremely dangerous.

I believe that this proposed project does not comply with the current council regulations and does not maintain the current ambience of the local community.
The proposed project intends to build to a height of 16m above the level of the floor in a suburb that has a current building height restriction of 13m from the ground floor.
The proposed project intends to dump 3m of dirt/landfill material to build up the site, which I believe will increase the risk of flooding to the neighbouring properties.
The project developers are claiming that there will be 440 workers on site for construction, which I believe will create problems for traffic flow and disruption to local property owners and increased parking issues. The main access point will be through the Uniting Age Care premises from Kingscliff Street.
The proposed building is multi-level to provide 200 home units which is not in keeping with the current character of the surrounding land use.
These are my main objections to the proposed project and suggest that it should not be approved for construction.

Kingscliff is a quiet costal community which has limited road access and a building height restriction of 13.5 meters. If the state government allowed this development, it would be destroy not only the small community feel of Kingscliff, but also the trust of the community for the Labor State government. Why approve a development that would increase traffic and put a strain on local services so a developer can make a profit and only increase nursing home beds by a total of 8. That area is prone to flooding and whilst mitigation works may be carried out, if they are inadequate, the developers will be long gone and the council / state government will not take any responsibility. We are concerned that if this development is approved and the height restriction is increased a precedent will be set, opening the floodgates to taller buildings.

I object to the Uniting Church Development design based on the local area regulation height restrictions.
The restrictions on the height for development in Kingscliff is specifically to maintain the quality and amenability within the area.

To allow Uniting Church to build above and beyond these restrictions will tear up these regulations and allow others to develop outside of what is currently regulated and adhered to by all others.

The additional aged care facility is only a minimal increase whereas the overall development is to secure further housing only for those that can afford it and will certainly not contribute to alleviating the current housing shortage for those that need it most.

The overall dimensions of the development are excessive and intrusive, reducing privacy and harmony to the properties neighbouring the site.

Development in the area should be in the current Greenfield areas to reduce traffic, noise and congestion. West Kingscliff would be far more suitable instead of condensing and creating a higher density population, thus creating another slum like city.

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

While there is a need for more aged care, this development does not make any significant contribution to aged care bed numbers and is being developed in a very unsuitable location for the following reasons:
The proposed buildings exceed the height limits set for other developments in Kingscliff. This will impact on surrounding residences by reducing solar access and reducing privacy with buildings close enough to see clearly into living spaces.
Noise from delivery and service vehicles as well as staff shift changes will also increase noise after normal working hours.
The area is in a flood prone area and houses adjoining the proposed development were subject to flooding in March 2022. Additional soil fill to raise buildings as planned will further exacerbate flood issues in North Kingscliff.
Entry and exit locations will not be able to handle increased traffic during the building phase nor in the long term as they were designed only for local traffic.
There is insufficient parking space for builders, service vehicles and residents.

Kingscliff Street is already a very busy and dangerous street to drive and cross. It is the main access to the Waugh Street entry to the M1 and there are at times backups occur along Phillip Street as vehicles wait to get onto Waugh Street.

The Uniting Redevelopment is set in a space which is environmentally at risk with one of the local bird species under threat of extinction (Bush Stone Curlew - In late afternoon and evening a small number wander across Kingscliff Street).

The northern section of Kingscliff is less than 200 metres from the high tide mark and the wetland yet developers are allowed to increase the human population by soil fill on the wetland area with the high probability that the next significant flood could see the need to evacuate many residents in the proposed development as well as even more residents in the adjoining streets.

I am concerned as an elderly resident living within 15 metres of a large 5 level building within the redevelopment that the quality of my life will be negatively impacted as well as that of my neighbours and the whole Kingscliff community.
This is gross overdevelopment of a coastal/wetland landscape that has already been damaged and it is important that high rise and large developments are not allowed on the narrow strip of land between the high tide level and the wetland.

I object to the bulk and scale of this development. This is a gross overdevelopment of the battle axe landlocked block in a small coastal town. This is going to have such devastating affect on this village and especially my family as residents. This block is surrounded by Beach Street, Drift Court with entrance from Kingscliff Street near the beach Street roundabout and a second driveway in Lorien across from my home.

I vigorously object to the building height Kingscliff’s current height is 13.6 metres above ground level this project is increasing this to 16.75 metres which will be higher than this once ground is filled before build. As I was not permitted to build a designed carport on my property - grounds given this would change the esthetics of the street. What on earth is this gross overdevelopment going to do ???this is so unjust. This massive proposed construction is completely out of character with the surrounding homes and Kingscliff’s coastal village.

I firmly object to the filling in of the site. In 2022 water came up into our street to a height never seen before. The impact of infill and covering of more drainage land with more building and concrete will just worsen the flooding impact in the lungs lift area. This is a major worrying concern. To cause flood free residence to become prone through increased runoff would be a disaster.

I object to the increase in traffic in Lorien Way and. Beach Street not just suburban cars but major size trucks and increased bus runs. Also visitors and staff making the street more dangerous. At present even without this increase drivers need to stop and allow busses to pass when cars are parked either side of Beach Street and Lorien Way. Cars needs to park illegally now on the nature strip to allow for this as these suburban streets are not designed for buses and larger trucks which will increase and be detrimental to all.

I object to what will be an overflow of parking in these already congested streets. This proposed build is no more than luxury apartment development under the guise of age care and senior housing. What is relevant and needed is age care beds.

o Whom it may concern:
I am writing to you in regard to the State Significant Development Application of Uniting Kingscliff
-24A Kingscliff st SSD 4710958
I have review the plans & documents provided & have put together the following summary of my concerns:
-I object to the negative impact that this gross overdevelopment will have on the liveability, character of my area ..Smaller apartment /villa type development that is compatible with my local neighbourhood as in what is in Yamba. I think your development is being pushed under the guise of “aged care”. All Uniting Care is doing is adding extra 8 aged care beds to that that is already there – 199 retirement units is not aged care.This whole development will cause Hugh stress to myself & my neighbours impacting our health, mentally & physical.The large amount of noise, dust, vibrations & heavy vehicle traffic will impact the health of me & my neighbours. This whole process in consultation & this SSDA is causing a lot of stress & anxiety for my neighbours& myself just because Uniting want to add 8 extra high care beds , 199 retirement units that only rich will be able to buy. This whole development is not helping aged care or Kingscliff community just Uniting .
Flood Prone land
-I object to building on Flood prone land. The ground level will be raised to 3.8m above sea level creating a huge problem for me & my neighbour’s as our land is lower at 3.3m above sea level. I am not convinced 5 tanks & “one way valve” is enough to protect my property & neighbours from flooding. There is no mention at all of impacts to my property& neighbours(Lorien way & lower western side).Uniting position is once water leaves thought the one way valve then it will be a council problem. I lived in Lorien Way in last big flood Feb 2022 -Uniting care property had huge amount of water in there then – how many people will be impacted by flooding if this development goes ahead that never have flooded before.
I object to amount of fill will be required to raise ground level with dust causing huge problems with ducts (air condition) needing 4 cleans per year as opposed to once every year. Bradshaw air-condition based here in Kingscliff has told us this fact which will required added expense to us . All under the banner of 8 extra nursing home beds- think not Uniting Care.
Traffic
-I object to increase generation of traffic into local streets & roundabout . Kingscliff St is not a viable entrance because it runs into roundabout hence why Lorien is being developed. Local Council had rejected a similar project because of this. Construction traffic for stage 1 will be directed to Lorien Way entrance resulting in a constant stream of trucks(heavy & light vehicles) up & down Lorien Way for 2 years between hrs of 7-6pm Mon – Friday & 8-1 Saturday. This already impacting on a 80 route & school buses per day using Beach & Lorien Way.
- The 400 workers who are expected to work on this project- where will they be parking? Lorien way as this will be access point to development impacting an already busy road.Also there is no visitor car park for building A so off course visitors will park Lorien Way hugely impacting myself & neighbours. As it is now when a bus comes down Lorien Way you have to give way to it as road not wide enough for both so putting construction traffic in will cause chaos .
Loss of View & Solar:
-I object to Solar Shade studies p50 Appendix C Architecture design incorrectly labelling unit numbers- I am 37 Lorien Way behind 35 no 33 as seen on report. I object to stated that I will have no shadowing from 12-3pm as my solar panels now start producing from as early as 6am in summer & I will not have benefit of this for my electricity bill. The solar specialist Hardy Electrical has advised us that our panels will be dramatically impacted by building B & we will need to have our panels moved costing $1000.
-I object to building B directly behind my house which was originally stated to be was at 13.6M but on application it is to be raised to 16.75M which is gross overdevelopment.i am severely impacted ( as all my neighbours)by this height as I will not see the sky from my house.The current height of buildings in Kingscliff is 13.6 so raising height is not keeping with surrounding neighbours & character if Kingscliff.My house was used to take photos but these not used as think the impact a 16.75M building 9 M from my fence would have been huge thus projecting Uniting in a unfavourable position.
P22 Architectal design Report App c states largest boundaries run north to south to harness morning & afternoon sun but what about my panels – I would like to harness the sun as I have am now but will now lose this.Our property will be overshadowed by this building & gorgeous natural sunlight we get now( one of reasons we purchased this property) will badly impacted.
Privacy:
I object to the proposed developments as it results in a substantial impact on the privacy most of aspects of my home bedroom, family room, outdoor area from building B & A.It is not clear of what side balconies are on building A as stated building A reduced to single loaded corridor but photos show balconies on both sides.

Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD-478105980), Uniting Aged Care Application

I wish to object to the proposed Uniting Aged Care Application, “Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD-478105980)”in its current form.
While I can understand that Uniting Aged Care may wish to increase its residential capacity and improve resources, I object to this being achieved by overriding well-established Council development standards.
My concerns are broadly summarised below:
1. The bulk and extensive footprint of the development is of a scale that is out of keeping with the generally low rise built environment of surrounding residential development and Kingscliff as it is largely viewed.
2. Loss of privacy and amenity: For the properties immediately adjacent or near to the development, there will be a significant sense of loss of privacy, having outdoor and bedroom spaces overviewed all the time, loss of general open views and aspect, and reduction or loss of solar access for some properties, affecting lifestyle and solar power generation.
In terms of the wider community, a 4-storey development pocketed in the centre of other lower scale residential will be well visible above the surrounding building ‘skyline’ and totally out of context with the local environment and ambience.
3. Traffic congestion will increase significantly via the two proposed points of access if the development remains at its current scale.
There will be increased traffic noise and vehicle movements including residents, visitors, waste collection and service vehicles, couriers, deliveries and tradespersons.
Traffic modelling data and details should be reexamined in the context of proximity to Beach Street roundabout and Lorien Way. Their capacity to deal with the additional traffic movements safely into the Kingscliff Street cul-de-sac and Lorien Way back street is questionable.
During the 2 stage construction phase, projected to take place over 4, perhaps 5 years (we are talking about construction work and associated variables), there will also be an estimated 400-450 trade vehicles and building supplies vehicles attending site.
Where will these vehicles park and what impact will they have on day-to-day traffic?
Photos included in the EIS (51) conveniently show a dearth of the already numerous existing cars which park in the streets.
4. Noise: Associated with the construction work will be significant noise from the site for a several years. Excavation, site works, piling or piering (?), concrete pours, pneumatic and hand tools, communications and radios, vehicle and material movements to name a few.
• What steps to mitigate the impact of this issue will be implemented and monitored?
• What limits to working hours will be set?
5. Council’s flood planning map shows that the site is potentially subject to flooding, ref Tweed LEP 2014.
Clauses 5.21 and 5.22 define a plethora of objectives and guidelines that demand intense scrutiny, particularly in light of the recent flood event.
Council or other authorities must dutifully consider the full and consequential impacts of the development of this land and the management of stormwater and potential flood waters in light of the recent flood revelations?
6. The current building height limit is 13.6m above ground level - ref Zone N2 on building height planning sheet HOB_023
I put it to Council that the three-storey building height limit is the ‘gold standard’ by which Kingscliff’s sense of space, lifestyle, amenity and community is maintained. It should never be threatened.
The proposed building height is 16.75m, which facilitates a four-storey structure, one more than currently permitted.
This variation is not acceptable.
More clear information identifying the existing ground level relative to proposed filled ground levels and the extent thereof, and showing the levels of adjacent residential properties would be of benefit to understanding the real impact of the proposal on adjacent land.
7. Purpose of the development: If the purpose of the development is to provide more ‘affordable’ aged care facilities for the Kingscliff community, the proposed mix appears to fall short of the objective, there being only a limited number of additional aged care spaces. Based on the size and design of the majority of units, as shown on the EIS (51) plans, the emphasis clearly appears to be lean more towards upper price bracket purchasers.
This may well be a valid commercial decision, that is, to maximise profitability. However, it surely should NOT be supported to the detriment of the community though a strategic ‘reinterpretation of the rules’ to suit that commercial goal.
8. Finally, in simple terms, if the development goes ahead in its current form, particularly with respect to the increased building height, I submit that it will set a platform for more development submissions which will seek to exploit deviations to Council‘s planning control that will to the demise of Kingscliff’ character as we know it!
I urge Council and authorities, including State Government, to further review the proposal and to further liaise with the community to set guidelines and conditions that may allow a development of a more appropriate scale to be created.

I object to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD-47105958). My wife and I moved to Kingscliff just over 18 months ago because we loved the feel of this little beach side town, but I am very concerned about the scale of this redevelopment. It doesn’t look like it would fit in with the rest of Kingscliff’s aesthetic and it will be very out of place. We have been told about and saw photos of the redevelopment site during the recent floods that showed the site completely flooded with water. I am very worried about where this water is going to end up next time it floods if this large redevelopment goes ahead? It would need to go somewhere and likely lead to nearby properties that haven’t flooded before, flooding next time as a result. This is a big worry.

Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD-478105980), Uniting Aged Care Application
I wish to voice my strong objection to the proposed Uniting Aged Care Application, “Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD-478105980)” in its current form.
Council, which I must presume followed earnest debate and evaluation of the area of Kingscliff in the context and guidelines of responsible land management, has established height and building guidelines that will ensure the scale and character of Kingscliff is maintained for many years to come.
While I can appreciate that Uniting Aged Care may wish to increase its residential capacity and improve resources, I object to this being achieved at the sacrifice of the established development standards.
In brief, my concerns are set out below:
1. The bulk and extensive footprint of the development is of a scale that is disproportionate to the generally low rise built environment of surrounding residential development and Kingscliff as it is largely viewed.
2. Local impacts: For the properties immediately adjacent or near to the development, there will be a significant sense of loss of privacy, having outdoor and bedroom spaces overviewed all the time, loss of general open views and aspect, and reduction or loss of solar access for some properties, affecting lifestyle and solar power generation.
In terms of the wider community, a 4-storey development pocketed in the centre of other lower scale residential will be well visible above the surrounding building ‘skyline’ and totally out of context with the local environment and ambience.
3. Traffic congestion, if it proceeds in its current form, will increase significantly via the two proposed points of access.
There will be increased traffic noise and vehicle movements including residents, visitors, waste collection and service vehicles, couriers, deliveries and tradespersons.
Traffic modelling data and details should be expertly challenged in the context of its close proximity to the Beach Street roundabout. Its capacity to deal with the additional traffic movements safely entering and leaving the site in both directions is highly questionable.
Generating significant extra traffic onto a cul-de-sac that struggles to manage the existing traffic let alone the proposed increase of traffic is ill conceived and poorly resolved.
The second access point via Lorien way, while appearing to be in a ‘less exposed’ location, will undoubtedly also adversely impact local properties in a similar way.
During the 2-stage construction phase, projected to take place over 4, perhaps 5 years (we are talking about construction work and associated variables), there will also be an estimated 350-400 trade vehicles (tools, trailers and equipment to boot), concrete trucks, cranes, and building supplies vehicles and the like attending the site on a regular basis.
Where will these vehicles park and what impact will they have on day-to-day traffic for the duration?
Photos included in the EIS (51) conveniently show a dearth of the already existing cars that park in the street. I suggest they are not a realistic image of typical street usage.
4. Noise: Associated with the construction work will be significant noise from the site for a several years. Excavation, site works, piling or piering (?), concrete pours, pneumatic and hand tools, communications and radios, vehicle and material movements to name a few.
• What steps to mitigate the impact of this issue will be implemented and monitored?
• What limits to working hours will be set?
5. Council’s flood planning map shows that the site is potentially subject to flooding, ref Tweed LEP 2014.
Clauses 5.21 and 5.22 define a plethora of objectives and guidelines that demand intense scrutiny, particularly in light of the recent flood event.
Has Council and other authorities considered the full and consequential impacts of the development of this land in light of the recent flood revelations?
It appears the potential for stormwater surcharge, observed in the recent floods, is now a new potential local issue. Adequate protection to neighbouring properties and the subject site should be clearly established.
6. The current building height limit is 13.6m above ground level - ref Zone N2 on building height planning sheet HOB_023.
I put it to Council and other vested authorities that the three storey building height limit is the ‘gold standard’ by which Kingscliff’s sense of space, lifestyle, amenity and community is maintained. It should not be compromised.
The proposed building height is 16.75m, which facilitates a four storey structure, one more than currently permitted.
This variation is not acceptable.
To further compound the matter, is this reference level based on existing ground level, or a filled ground level? The proposed height appears ill-defined, and if arbitrary to suit the developer/development, I submit it will NOT likely to be sensitive to surrounding development and be more driven by financial ‘modeling’.
The levels shown on the survey are not extended to adjacent residential properties, and as can be seen by local visual inspection, appear at odds with what levels are there.
AHD survey levels for all contours (including adjacent properties) and proposed fill and building levels should be provided, rather than generic ‘datum’ reference heights.
The levels shown on drawings of elevations and sections also appear to be confusing in the context of survey detail. Further evaluation of the base reference level would be of benefit to understanding and validation, or otherwise, of the modelling.
7. Purpose of the development: If the purpose of the development is to provide more ‘affordable’ aged care facilities for the Kingscliff community, the proposed mix appears to fall short of the objective, there appearing to be only limited number of additional aged care spaces. Based on the size and design of the majority of units, as shown on the EIS (51) plans, the emphasis clearly appears to be lean more towards bigger units and high-end purchasers.
This may well be a valid commercial decision, that is, to maximise profitability. However, it surely should NOT be supported to the detriment of the community though a strategic ‘reinterpretation of the rules’ to suit that commercial goal.
8. Finally, in simple terms, if the development goes ahead in its current form, particularly with respect to the increased building height, I submit that it will set a platform for more development submissions which will seek to exploit deviations to Council‘s planning controls, and then as they say, bang goes the neighbourhood!
I urge Council and authorities, including State Government, to further review the proposal and to further liaise with the community to set guidelines and conditions that may allow a development of a more appropriate scale to be created.

* Height is way above current and with fill it will end up being 19.75 high = 6.15 metres taller than existing development
* Severe traffic congestion
* It is not for additional aged care, it is about greed. With only 40 extra aged care beds why such a huge development equal to the size of a satelite city.
*Privacy for the surrounding neighbours severely impacted
* Devaluation of existing properties
* Construction chaos for 6 years, roads deteriorated much more rapidly, costing ratepayers more in rate increases to cover
* Parking for workers - where?
* This is a guise for greedy developers - not for the aging demographics of Kingscliff
With plenty of land west of Kingscliff, why are they pursuing a compact city in a peaceful village?
If the Tweed Shire Council or as a State Government Initiative allow this, after disallowing so many other developers previously, it will open the floodgate for everyone in the future to build to the new height and then there will be no village, but another slum area like Logan in Queensland or Mount Druitt and other western suburbs in New South Wales.

I object to the Uniting Kingscliff Redevelopment (SSD-47105958). I have concerns about the impacts the redevelopment on this site could have on future floods. In 2022 Kingscliff had a big flood and the site of the redevelopment was completely under water. I am worried about where this water is going to go next floods? It seems like adding a building to this scale and more fill on the site will create issues with even more properties in Kingscliff flooding. I also worry about potential increase in traffic around the area? Whenever I have driven down Beach Street and Lorien Way, both streets are always full of cars parked along the side of the roads and they have a lot of buses accessing these streets. A new entrance in Lorien Way would only add to the busyness in this area.
My husband and I moved to Kingscliff just over 18 months ago because we loved the feel of this little beach side town but I am very concerned about the height of this redevelopment and the big size of it. It doesn’t fit in with the rest of Kingscliff and seems like it will be very out of place and character. I feel like this redevelopment would not match the rest of the town as the size of it is much bigger and higher than anything else in the area.