Insufficient parking
Increased traffic and noise in local streets
Sets a precedent 5 storey building will be everywhere
Very few affordable housing units available
No restriction on short term rentals such as air b&b
All this impacts on the character of Salt Village and Tourism . People stay here for the quiet coastal getaway

I wish to formally lodge an objection to the proposed five-storey mixed-use development at 4–8 Bells Boulevard, Kingscliff (Salt) NSW 2487.

I am concerned that the scale and intensity of this development will have significant adverse impacts on local residents, particularly in relation to building height, traffic generation, parking demand, and the overall character of the area.

My objection is on the following grounds:

Building Height and Scale
The proposed height of 21 metres substantially exceeds the existing 13.6 metre height limit and represents an increase from three storeys to five storeys within the Salt precinct. This change is inconsistent with the established built form of the area. There are several examples of high-quality four-storey residential developments that comply with the 13.6-metre height control, demonstrating that appropriate density outcomes can be achieved without exceeding the current planning framework.
The proposed height and bulk would materially alter the visual character of Bells Boulevard and set an undesirable precedent for similar applications in Kingscliff and surrounding areas.

Traffic and Parking Impacts
The development does not appear to provide sufficient parking to accommodate residents, visitors, and retail patrons. Existing parking in the area is already under pressure, and this issue will be exacerbated as the Kings Forest development progresses, with up to 4,500 additional homesites planned.
Increased traffic, congestion, and associated noise will directly affect surrounding local streets, where also, my family and I reside. The cumulative impact of this development, together with future growth in the area, has not been adequately addressed.

Village Character and Precedent
Kingscliff and Casuarina have developed a distinct village character that differentiates them from the Gold Coast. My family relocated here nearly 25 years ago and established a business locally. Many of our customers consistently state that one of the area’s key attractions is that it has not adopted the scale and intensity of development seen on the Gold Coast.
This proposal risks undermining that character. While development is both necessary and expected, it must be appropriate in scale and sensitive to the existing planning controls and community expectations.

Retail Component
It remains unclear what form the proposed retail and business spaces will take. Kingscliff and Casuarina already contain established supermarket and shopping facilities. If smaller scale retail tenancies were proposed, this may better align with the existing character of the area and potentially allow for more appropriate residential density without the excessive increase in height.

Affordable Housing Provision
The inclusion of two affordable housing units requires further clarification. It is not clear whether these dwellings would be genuinely affordable to local working families or whether they are intended as social housing. If the development is intended to contribute meaningfully to addressing housing affordability, consideration should also be given to implementing strata by-laws that prohibit short-term holiday accommodation, ensuring that the dwellings provide long-term housing supply rather than investor-driven short-term rentals.

In conclusion, my objection is not to development itself, but to the scale, height, and precedent set by this proposal. I respectfully request that the NSW Department of Planning, carefully consider the long-term implications of approving a development that exceeds the established planning controls and risks eroding the character of Kingscliff.

I sincerely hope that an outcome can be achieved that balances growth with the preservation of the qualities that make this community unique.


Yours sincerely,
Vicki Ryder

I've seen some pamphlets and other notices online from a group against the development.

As a resident around the corner the scare campaign really frustrates me. the majority of the area around us consists of hard-working families in support of the development but with little time to spend on submissions like this.

In a busy area with rising house prices, its sad this land has been sitting there for so long.

The proposal suits the community needs perfectly. it is mixed use to allow everyone to enjoy in some form. and there is a range of housing options - we've been excited about the prospects of my parents being able to afford a small place here.

i understand and appreciate concerns of my fellow community members around height issues. but my read on this is that the concerns here are unwarranted. the height is inline with surrounding buildings, it wont look out of place at all. How are we expected to increase house supply via more diverse options without developments like this?

this development is fitting for the locality. it is a win for the community. i whole hearedly support it.

Great opportunity for residential apartment living in the village, which is limited. From my prospective, this will be an option for downsizing in the near future.
I currently live withing 100 meters of the site and see it as a great alternative to the current rubbish dumping graffiti hub.

This submission is not an objection to the development at 4-8 Bells Blvd Kingscliffe in principle. Appropriate developments can contribute positively to Kingcliff when it aligns with established planning controls and respects the character and capacity of the local environment. That corner undeveloped has been an eyesore for many years, however the scale and intensity of this proposal go beyond what has historically been permitted or supported in this area and risk setting an undesiable precedent.

We DO NOT support the FIVE STORIES 21m height instead of the existing THREE STORIES - 13.6m. This would compromise the connected community currently there, SALT has a village character and connected greenspace areas of the area and what attracts tourist to the area. The western vista and solar access for residents of SP 73905, severely impacting views of the hinterland and shadows over the exisiting development, impacting the enjoyment of holiday goers and in turn affect the tourism opportunties for Mantra/Peppers, and owners of a short-term accomodation development.

The proposal includes only two 1BR affordable housing units. While affordable housing is important, this level of provision is minimal context of the development of this size and does little to address local housing affordability pressures - suggesting a minimal compliance approach rather than a meaningful contriution to housing diversity or commmunitiy needs.

The dense development proposed for this site will be start contrast to the Village precinct which it should mirror and compliment, by enforcing the development to also include village feel and extensive greenspace for the local community providing more opportunities for locals/tourists to enjoy the outdoors.

Please refer to our attached letter.
Kind Regards,
Trevor and Chelse Dunne

I object to 5 storey development. This is too high for our suburban area. More importantly it will set a precedent for every other future developments to apply for additional stories not just in Salt, but the other Tweed suburbs, which they inevitably will. Once 5 storeys is allowed, applications will be asking for 6, and it goes on…..
There is not enough parking and no space for overspill in the immediate surrounding, so the local roads will suffer.
Many of the streets including Avoca Street are too narrow to take on additional cars parked on streets.
Noise will be increased by all the retail and eateries.
It’s a shame that developers can bypass our local government who has protected this beautiful area from over development.
I also object to 4 storey developments, but since that just has been approved Kingscliff, I’m sure that’s the limit…..until this one is approved. Then it will be 6. Please don’t ruin the area. Thankyou