There is a 3 story limit in the area for environmental protection reasons.
The costal area is to be protectected .Not overdevelped and turned into the Gold coast.
This is outrages to be suggested as some sort of cheap housing lie.
Kings Forrest has not even been inhabited and that will be way to many people already for the infrastructer in the area.
How thet even get to submit this king of project when the legal limit is 3 stories for a reason.

I write as a long-term resident of Kingscliff to formally object to the proposed development at 4–8 Bells Boulevard.
While I acknowledge the need for thoughtful growth and housing diversity within our community, I have significant concerns regarding the scale, character, amenity impacts and broader planning implications of this proposal.
1. Excessive Height and Scale
The proposed five-storey development is inconsistent with the established low-rise character of Kingscliff. The bulk and height of the building appear excessive relative to the surrounding built environment and risk permanently altering the village atmosphere that residents and visitors value. Approving a development of this scale may also set an undesirable precedent for further intensification beyond what was originally envisaged for this precinct.
2. Impact on Residential Amenity
The proposal will likely result in overlooking and loss of privacy for neighbouring properties, particularly from upper-level balconies and windows. Overshadowing may also reduce solar access to adjacent homes and outdoor spaces. These impacts would significantly diminish the liveability of nearby residences.
3. Traffic and Parking Pressures
Kingscliff already experiences congestion during peak tourist periods and holidays. Increased density at this location will inevitably generate additional vehicle movements, placing further strain on local roads and pedestrian safety. Even with basement parking proposed, overflow parking and service vehicle access are genuine concerns for surrounding streets.
4. Flooding and Environmental Concerns
Given the flood-prone nature of parts of Kingscliff, there is concern about stormwater management, site fill, and cumulative impacts on surrounding properties. Any development in this area must demonstrate beyond doubt that it will not exacerbate flooding risks or compromise drainage patterns.
5. Planning Integrity and Community Confidence
It is concerning that the proposal requires variations or exceeds what many residents understood to be the intended planning controls for this area. Community confidence in the planning process depends on transparency and adherence to established controls that protect neighbourhood character and amenity.
Kingscliff is valued for its coastal village identity, walkability, and human-scale built form. Development that is disproportionate to its surroundings risks eroding these qualities. I respectfully request that the application be refused in its current form, or substantially amended to better reflect the character, scale and amenity expectations of the local community.
Thank you for considering my submission.

Submission in Support of Proposed Development
To the NSW Department of Planning

My name is Luke Fitzgerald and I reside at 25 Longboard Circuit, Kingscliff. My home is located within a few hundred metres of the proposed development site. I also operate a local business based directly across the road at Salt Village, giving me both a residential and commercial perspective on this proposal.

I am writing in support of the proposed development. Kingscliff, and Salt Village in particular, is clearly under-served in terms of retail and food offerings relative to the number of residents and visitors it accommodates. The current lack of choice and activation means locals and tourists regularly travel out of Kingscliff to meet everyday needs, which weakens the local economy and undermines the purpose of having a designated village precinct.

Additional retail and food outlets within this development would help reinvigorate the area, increase pedestrian activity, and encourage people to stay and spend locally. From my position as a nearby business operator, increased activation benefits the broader precinct rather than competing with existing businesses. More foot traffic supports employment, improves commercial viability, and strengthens the overall village atmosphere.

The proposal will also contribute to local job creation, both during construction and through ongoing retail and service employment once completed. Keeping jobs and services within Kingscliff reduces the ongoing reliance on travel to surrounding centres, improves convenience for residents, and supports a more self-sustaining local economy.

In relation to building height, I do not consider the proposed height of approximately 21 metres to be an issue in this location. This site is one of the last remaining significant development parcels in the local area and is appropriately positioned to accommodate additional scale. It has no direct, immediate residential neighbours that would be unreasonably impacted, and its location at the entry to Salt Village makes it suitable for a more prominent built form that helps define and complete the precinct.

If a site of this size, location, and context cannot support a development of this nature, it raises a legitimate question about where growth in Kingscliff is intended to be accommodated. Concentrating height and density in well-located, planned sites is a more responsible approach than dispersing development pressure into established low-density residential areas.

Overall, I believe the proposal represents a balanced and logical opportunity to improve local amenity, strengthen the Kingscliff economy, support tourism, and provide long-term benefits to residents and businesses alike. For these reasons, I support the proposed development and encourage the NSW Department of Planning to give it favourable consideration.

I write to object to this proposed mixed use development.

Kingscliff is defined by it's low-rise coastal village character. The current 13.6m height limit reflects long-standing planning controls designed to protect this scale and ensure development remains consistent with the established streetscape. A five-storey building represents a significant and inappropriate intensification that is out of character with the surrounding built form, which is predominantly two to three storeys.

The proposal introduces excessive bulk and visual mass that would dominate neighbouring properties and the public domain. The overall scale is completely inconsistent with the intended village character. Approval would create a precedent for similar developments, eroding the low-scale identity that residents and visitors value.

Traffic and infrastructure impacts are also of major concern. Additional, high density, residential dwellings and retail activity will increase vehicle movements and demand for on-street parking. Parking proposed in this development does not eliminate overflow impacts. There is insufficient justification that the local road network and infrastructure, particularly Casuarina Way and Cudgen Creek Bridge, can absorb this level of density without adverse effects. As a local resident and medical doctor with young children living less than a few hundred metres from this proposed development, I am very concerned about the safety of my children and other local residents needing to cross an already very busy, and at times dangerous, Casurina Way.

While the inclusion of two affordable housing units is acknowledged, this represents a very small component of the overall project and should not justify a substantial departure from the established character and planning intent for the area. Affordable housing outcomes, while desperately needed in the local region, should be delivered in a manner consistent with local height and scale controls.

The proposed development appears to prioritise site yield over contextual design and long-term community outcomes. Kingscliff's economic strength and tourism appeal are closely tied to it's relaxed, low-rise coastal identity. Incremental approval of oversized development risks permanently transforming the village we know and love into a high-density coastal corridor inconsistent with community expectations.

For these reasons, I request that the application be refused in it's current form. Any redvelopment of the site should strictly comply with current height limits at an appropriate bulk and scale consistent with Kingscliff's established coastal village character.

Thank you for considering this submission.

Fully support the proposed DA, any objection in height restrictions are unfounded in this current location due to the close proximity of 3 storey Mantra Resort. This Resort and nearby Peppers Salt Resort also of 3 storey have an extensive foot print within the area far in excess of the proposed DA. The proposed DA will support local jobs and tourism to the area. Any concerns about parking overflow are unfounded with an existing parking area located a short distance away.

This is a clear breach of the planning rules. The height limit is 13.6m, not 21m (A request for 54% increased on the allowed height limit). It is clear that the applicant, by applying to the NSW government as State Significant, is trying to bypass the local council rules. There is nothing "State Significant" about this application and the height limit was agreed upon by elected local officials for the protection of the fabric of the Kingscliff community. This height limit has been in effect since prior to this land being purchased by the applicant for this development. I have no issues with responsible development within the clearly defined limits.

I
I strongly object to this proposed development, particularly in relation to exceeding the maximum height limits of 13.6m by a whopping 4.4m!
The tweed coast is protected from over development by the hard (and continually) fought for over decades height limits.

Should this proposal get though at the 18m height then it will be the thin edge of the wedge for ongoing, inappropriate development across the Tweed and particularly the coast, which is also protected from such development by our planning frameworks including the North Coast Regional Plan.

I strongly object to any trashing of height limits for the sake of the developers pocket. Please enforce only developments that are balanced and retain the very things that go to the heart of character and liveability of the tweed coast.

Submission – Objection
State Significant Development
Mixed-Use Development – 4–8 Bells Boulevard, Kingscliff
Submitter: Michelle Holtom
Kingscliff NSW
1. Introduction
I am a resident of Kingscliff living approximately 200 metres from the proposed development site at
4–8 Bells Boulevard. I lodge this submission objecting to the proposal in its current form.
Key Concerns
• Non-compliance with established height controls.
• Traffic and cumulative infrastructure impacts.
• Parking spillover and safety.
• Bulk and incompatibility with local coastal character.
• Lack of demonstrated economic need for additional commercial floor space.
• Inconsistency with applicable strategic planning objectives.
2. Statutory Considerations
Under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the consent authority
must consider environmental planning instruments, likely impacts, site suitability, submissions
made, and the public interest.
Relevant planning instruments include the Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2014 and the North
Coast Regional Plan 2041.
3. Height and Built Form
The proposal seeks development up to approximately five storeys (~18 metres), exceeding
prevailing local height controls. Height controls exist to maintain coastal character, protect amenity,
and ensure orderly development. A site-specific uplift risks undermining planning integrity and
setting undesirable precedent.
4. Commercial Floor Space – Lack of Demonstrated Need
The proposal includes approximately 1,500m² of additional retail/commercial floor space. There is
no publicly demonstrated evidence of unmet demand within the Kingscliff/Salt precinct. Observablevacancies suggest existing supply has not been fully absorbed.
Strategic planning principles require commercial development to respond to demonstrated demand
and contribute to sustainable economic growth. Introducing additional retail supply without robust
economic justification risks increasing vacancy, undermining existing businesses, and creating
economic inefficiency.
5. Traffic and Infrastructure Capacity
The addition of approximately 70 dwellings plus retail floor space will materially increase vehicle
movements within an already constrained coastal road network. Cumulative impacts must be
assessed holistically.
6. Coastal Character and Public Interest
Kingscliff is defined by low-rise, human-scale coastal character. The proposed scale introduces
urban intensity inconsistent with established planning intent. The public interest is not served by
overriding planning controls without clear strategic justification.
7. Requested Determination
• Refuse the proposal in its current form; or
• Require substantial reduction in height and bulk;
• Require an independent economic impact assessment demonstrating genuine commercial
need;
• Ensure cumulative traffic impacts are properly addressed prior to any approval.
Sincerely,
Michelle Holtom
Kingscliff NSW