The Kingscliff and Casuarina precincts have typically been restricted to a 3-storey building height, which has controlled the density level as well as ensured the level of facility in the area is balanced (e.g. parking). The height restriction has also meant that the natural environment can be enjoyed by all and avoids the Gold Coast look and feel of ruining the natural environment. Any increase to the current height limit will detract from the area as it will create precedence for future development. I am whole-heartedly opposed to this development.

There is a 3 storey height limit in place, and this should be adhered to.
The Tweed Coast differentiates itself from the Gold Coast by being low rise, not a high rise jungle.
Keep the area low rise forever.

I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed Stage 3 development at Bells Boulevard in Salt Village. This is a thoughtful and well-planned mixed-use project that responds to Kingscliff’s growing needs while respecting its established coastal character. The inclusion of a diverse range of housing — including affordable options — is particularly important in ensuring that people of varying ages, incomes, and household types can continue to live and contribute locally. The proposed MU1 zoning appropriately enables this balanced outcome, and the modest height increase in the northern portion of the site appears reasonable when considered alongside the significant community and public benefits the project will deliver.

The design demonstrates a genuine focus on creating a vibrant, connected precinct rather than simply delivering buildings. Features such as the central courtyard, shared open spaces, wellness and recreational facilities, active street frontages, and generous landscaping will help foster social interaction, encourage active lifestyles, and enhance the overall public realm. The development also makes efficient use of one of the last undeveloped sites in Salt Village, supporting local employment and nearby businesses while maintaining a scale and form that sits comfortably within the neighbourhood. For these reasons, I fully support the proposal and encourage its approval.

I broadly support the project. I believe it is mostly consistent with the existing and future profile of the village. In fact I support all elements of the project except the proposed height. I believe both 21m and/or 4 floors is too high. I suggest at 15-18m and perhaps 3 floors it would blend into the local environment better. This would have a slight positive impact on other concerns raised around infrastructure, traffic and parking.

My objection is to Stage 3 – Mixed Use Development Bells Boulevard Kingscliff Application No SSD -83069459 Location 4-8 Bells Boulevard, Kingscliff and specifically to the application for a five -storey building permitting the buildings to be a maximum of 21 m.
1. This application is inconsistent with Existing Zoning & Planning Intent that myself and others living in the area bought into and undermines community expectations built around existing planning controls. The 5 story 21 m structure represents a significant departure from existing height and scale allowances in the area.
2. Approval of this application will set a precedent for further applications allowing for increased height in the general areas of Kingscliff and Casuarina. This is in effect rezoning by stealth and not in the interest of residents in the area.
3. This development will be is excessive in bulk, height, and visual dominance relative to its surroundings.
4. The introduction of a 5 story building creates a loss of privacy for nearby properties.
5. The development is inconsistent with the current neighbourhood coastal village and suburban nature.
6. The knock on change of nature of the area will negatively impact the value of nearby properties.

I object to 5 levels, this is outside the LC standard 3 x levels

I object to this develop because of exceeding the height limit in Kingscliff.
I also disagree with a five story building as this will set a precedent in this area.

I am concerned that this modification will adversely impact the area and surroundings by
1) increased traffic flow into and out of the area.
2) impact on parking in the area, inadequate allowances for additional requirements by new residents.
3) visual impact of such a large building , it will be out of place with the surrounding area.
4) insufficient allocation for affordable housing.
5) impact on supporting infrastructure and natural environment.

Objection to Development Application – 5 Storey Mixed Use Development, Casuarina NSW

To whom it may concern,

I write to formally object to the development application for a five-storey mixed-use development in Casuarina, within the Tweed Shire. The proposal, seeking approval for a building height of 21 metres in an area with a clearly defined maximum height limit of 13.6 metres, represents a substantial and unjustified departure from the planning controls that underpin the character and liveability of Casuarina.

1. Gross Exceedance of Height Limits

The most fundamental issue is that the proposed height of 21 metres exceeds the permissible 13.6 metre limit by an extraordinary margin. This is not a minor variation. It is an overreach of more than 50% above the prescribed maximum. Height limits exist for a reason: they are the product of strategic planning, community consultation, and careful consideration of environmental, visual, and social impacts.

To approve such a substantial breach would effectively render the height controls meaningless. If a development exceeding the height limit by this magnitude is permitted, it sends a clear signal that established planning controls are negotiable rather than binding. This undermines confidence in the planning framework administered by Tweed Shire Council and creates uncertainty for residents and investors alike.

2. Precedent and Erosion of Village Character

Casuarina has developed a distinct village character that is central to its appeal. Its relatively low-rise built form, open skies, and coastal scale contribute significantly to its identity. This character is not accidental; it is the result of deliberate planning decisions and adherence to established height and density controls.

Allowing a five-storey, 21-metre development would set a dangerous precedent. Once a building of this scale is approved, it becomes increasingly difficult to refuse subsequent applications seeking similar or greater heights. Over time, incremental approvals erode the intended planning framework and transform the built environment in ways never envisioned by the Local Environmental Plan.

Casuarina’s village scale is a drawcard for both residents and tourists. Visitors are attracted to the relaxed coastal atmosphere, not to an emerging skyline. The gradual introduction of buildings significantly above the established height limit risks converting Casuarina from a coastal village into a high-density urban corridor. Such a shift would fundamentally alter its identity and diminish the very qualities that support local tourism and community wellbeing.

3. Increased Pressure on Parking and Infrastructure

Parking in Casuarina is already limited, particularly during peak tourist seasons and holiday periods. A five-storey mixed-use development will inevitably generate additional demand for on-site and overflow parking. Even if nominal compliance with minimum parking requirements is claimed, real-world experience demonstrates that mixed-use developments frequently generate spill-over into surrounding streets.

Increased traffic and parking congestion will negatively affect existing residents, reduce accessibility for local businesses, and create safety concerns for pedestrians and cyclists. The cumulative effect of developments that intensify land use without proportional infrastructure upgrades is a decline in amenity for the broader community.

4. Questionable Claims of Affordable Housing

The application’s suggestion that a component of the development constitutes “affordable housing” warrants close scrutiny. Casuarina comprises some of the most expensive coastal land within the Tweed Shire. The economics of a 21-metre mixed-use development on premium land are fundamentally inconsistent with genuine, long-term affordable housing outcomes.

Labelling a token portion of a high-end development as “affordable” risks being little more than a marketing exercise. True affordable housing requires appropriate location, pricing controls, and long-term safeguards to ensure accessibility for lower- and moderate-income households. Without robust and enforceable mechanisms, such claims should not be used to justify a substantial breach of established planning controls.

5. The Need to Uphold Planning Integrity

Height limits are not arbitrary. They are embedded within the planning instruments governing development in the Tweed Shire to preserve amenity, manage visual impact, and maintain community expectations. To approve a development that so clearly exceeds the 13.6 metre limit would undermine the integrity of those instruments.

The role of government and its planning authorities is to uphold the framework that has been adopted following due process. If height limits can be exceeded by such a significant margin without compelling and exceptional justification, then the planning scheme ceases to function as intended.

It is essential that a strong message be sent: development must comply with the adopted controls unless there are truly exceptional circumstances that demonstrably serve the public interest. In this instance, no such exceptional merit has been established. The proposal prioritises private development gain over community character, infrastructure capacity, and the integrity of the planning system.

For the reasons outlined above — the gross exceedance of the height limit, the dangerous precedent it would set, the erosion of village character, the increased strain on parking and infrastructure, and the questionable justification of affordable housing — I strongly urge that this development application be refused.

Casuarina’s future should be guided by the planning controls that reflect the community’s vision for a low-rise coastal village. To permit this proposal would be to abandon that vision. The application should be rejected in its current form as it lacks sufficient merit to justify departure from the established height limit.

Yours faithfully,

Brett Drury
71 Vulcan St
Kingscliff

The proposed development at 21m and 5 storeys exceeds the maximum permitted height 13.6m and 3 storeys.
If allowed to proceed the development would set a precedent for future developments.
There will be an exponential increase in both traffic and noise affecting the local area.
Insufficient parking.
Casuarina Way is already very busy and further development will exasperate the issue.
There will be a detrimental impact on the village style and character of Salt Village affecting both residents and tourists.