RE: Submission for SSD-83069459 - 4-8 Bells Boulevard, Kingscliff

Dear Mr. Thomas,
Please note this submission is not an objection to the development at 4-8 Bells Boulevard, Kingscliff in principle.
I believe development can contribute positively to the area when it aligns with established planning controls and respects the character and capacity of the local environment. However, the scale and intensity of this proposal go beyond what has historically been permitted or supported in this area and risk setting an undesirable precedent
While I support the redevelopment of the subject site, I request that the following planning concerns and proposed conditions of consent be addressed:

1. Building Height and Bulk (Tweed LEP 2014 & DCP Compliance)
The proposal seeks a departure from the established three-storey height limit (approx. 13.6m) mandated by the Tweed Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and the original 2003 Masterplan consents for the Salt Beach Precinct. I object to the five storey scale as it is an inappropriate "abrupt change in scale" (per the NSW Apartment Design Guide) and is inconsistent with the "desired current and future character" of the locality. The proposed development fails to align with the intended scenic landscapes, neighbourhood character, and locality plans of the Kingscliff area. This proposal fails to achieve a suitable transition to adjoining properties and results in a stark and visually intrusive contrast in bulk and scale relative to the surrounding built form. To allow this proposal would set an unwanted and undesirable precedent. Also the additional two storeys would significantly compromise the western vista and solar access for residents of SP 73905.

2. Traffic and On-Site Parking Provisions
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) lacks a definitive schedule of uses for the retail/commercial components. Without a confirmed GFA breakdown - specifically regarding high-intensity "Food and Drink Premises" - the current parking assessment likely understates the required rate under the Tweed DCP. I request that the Department require a revised parking study to prevent overflow into the private parking and residential streetscape of Gunnamatta Avenue.

3. Affordable Housing Contribution
The proposal includes only two one-bedroom affordable housing units - which we understand will be rented out and managed by a specialist manager. While affordable housing is important, this level of provision is minimal in the context of a development of this size and does little to address local housing affordability pressures. The limited number of affordable units suggests a minimal compliance approach rather than a meaningful contribution to housing diversity or community need.

4. Restriction as to User (Short-term Rental Management)
If this development is justified on delivering permanent housing, that outcome must be secured. Without a restriction on title, there is a clear risk that dwellings could convert to Short-Term Rental Accommodation (STRA), undermining the housing supply rationale used to support the proposal. A development operating substantially as STRA would generate higher turnover, increased traffic movements, greater parking demand and elevated noise compared to permanent residential use. It would also reduce long-term rental and owner-occupied housing in a community already facing housing pressure.

A legally binding restriction, such as a Section 88B instrument, should therefore be imposed to ensure permanent residential occupation. Without this safeguard, the proposal risks functioning as a de facto tourist accommodation, contrary to its stated purpose and planning justification.

Conclusion
The combination of excessive height, parking pressure, traffic impacts and limited affordable housing facilities, proposes risks eroding the character and amenity of the area. Rather than integrating with its surroundings, the scale of the development would overwhelm the existing built form and undermine the defining qualities of the Salt precinct.

Tourists have been visiting this area for many years to enjoy its serene, beachside lifestyle - largely unspoilt by the multi-level developments seen further north in the Gold Coast region. A five-storey development at this gateway to the Salt precinct would be visually imposing and out of character, particularly as one enters the area. In addition, the increased traffic volumes and pressure on parking are likely to impact safety and detract from the relaxed coastal experience that defines Kingscliff.
For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully object to the proposed development in its current form. I request that the height be reduced to align with the existing 13.6-metre limit, that parking and traffic impacts be more rigorously addressed, that the affordable housing provision be meaningfully increased, and that greater weight be given to the long-term character and liveability of Kingscliff and the Salt precinct.

I write to make a submission in support of this development application and rezoning. The proposal is strongly supported on the following grounds:
- The proposal will make a positive contribution to the community and Salt Village by activating the currently underutilized site with the proposed vibrant mixed-use offering.
- The proposal will add to the supply of housing in the local area through the delivery of 69 residential apartments two of which will be provided as affordable housing apartments catering for the diverse housing needs of the community.
- The increase in building height is considered appropriate for the context as:
 - It makes efficient use of the last remaining development site in Kingscliff
- The scale is complementary to the existing adjacent Mantra and transitions sensitively across the three stages to the surrounds
- The site has no direct residential boundaries or interfaces enabling additional height to be achieved without adverse impacts
 - The built form is of a high quality and appropriately manages building bulk and scale through good design
 - The proposal will benefit the community through housing supply including two affordable housing apartments
Overall, the development represents a good planning outcome for the site and is strongly supported.

This project exceeds the current building restraints by more than 50 percent. This is not a minor deviation from the master plan for the Tweed Shire. This is thumbing your nose at regulators. The original infrastructure was not built to accommodate the extra traffic and garbage pickup. I don't know what planet the developers are living on but the so called "affordable" units don't meet any of the criteria to meet this standard. It is nothing more than treating the residents of the Tweed and government regulators with contempt. The residents of tweed are fed up with developers exceeding the regulations. I accept development will continue in the Tweed but this is more than pushing the boundaries. Please enforce the rules and regulations on this site. Give and inch and they take a mile has never been a more appropriate saying.

Please see attached document outlining objections and rationale for objections to Bells Boulevarde proposal SSD-83069459

I write to strongly object to the proposed Bells Boulevarde Development in its current form.
The proposal to develop to 21m – 5 STOREY on the Tweed Coast is beyond belief.
This developer wants a significant increase to our existing LEP 13.6m height limit to 21m to accommodate the proposed 5 STOREY development + 3m fill to level “abnormal existing ground level in the excavated part of the site”.
We have fought long & hard to defend our 13.6m height limit on the Tweed Coast & now another developer is trying to step around the guidelines, using State Significance as a developer’s tool.
Also, car parking spaces need to be considered. Given the number of shop top units, mixed business & park/recreation facilities, & visitors the allowance for this development appears to be inadequate. Developers have a chance to get this right at proposal stage & this needs to be addressed.
This is not an anti-development objection; this is about appropriate & responsible development for everyone.
Our community has fought hard to defend our Tweed Coast villages, our lifestyle, our liveability, & our coastal values, whilst attempting to accommodate appropriate development. A 5 STOREY development does not align with our coastal amenity.
We must be more responsible with development in our coastal villages. The long-term impact of decision making against our amenity & liveability will be detrimental for generations to come.
I urge you to refuse this proposal in its current form.
Regards
Gail Woodbury.
Kingscliff. 2487

The proponent is known for the quality of its architecture and committed to the delivery of development that will exceed what others may deliver on the site.