I object to the project on grounds of proposed heights being above our local height restrictions. This would create a drastic change to the amenity of our area, and create precedents that would lead to further trashing of our local amenity.
If the height limit was within the local government restrictions, I would not have an objection to this development. However, simply passing the development application with the proposed height would be terrible for our entire region.

I write to formally object to the current proposed mixed use development at Bells Boulevarde, Kingscliff.
This proposal is excessive in height and scale and represents a clear departure from the long-standing 13.6 metre height limit that applies to developments on the Tweed Coast south of Tweed Heads. This height control has been a consistent and important planning mechanism designed to protect the low-rise coastal character of the region. All other developments in this area have been subject to this limit. It is fundamental to what makes Kingscliff and the broader Tweed Coast unique.
The majority of surrounding development consists of low-rise residential housing, with many families living in close proximity to the proposed site. Residents purchased and invested in this area in reliance on the existing planning controls, permissible land uses and zoning framework. To now support a development that materially exceeds these established controls effectively shifts the goal posts and undermines community confidence in the planning system.
I reside within approximately 100 metres of the proposed development. As a local resident, legal professional and parent of young children, I have a direct and genuine interest in the outcome of this application. My family, like many others in the area, relies on safe pedestrian access across Casuarina Way. This road is already heavily trafficked and, at times, dangerous to cross. Increased residential density and retail activity will inevitably generate additional vehicle movements, exacerbating congestion and heightening safety risks for children and other residents who must regularly cross this busy corridor.
The proposed five-storey complex introduces excessive bulk and visual mass that is out of character with the existing village and coastal atmosphere. It would dominate the streetscape and neighbouring properties and is inconsistent with the prevailing two to three storey built form that defines Kingscliff’s identity.
The architectural concept elevations further reinforce these concerns. The proposed design appears institutional in nature and bears little relationship to the contemporary coastal architectural character that has developed throughout the area. It does not demonstrate a contextual design response appropriate for a coastal village setting.
Parking impacts are also of significant concern. While on-site parking is proposed, it is unrealistic to assume this will eliminate overflow demand. If commercial operators or all-day tenants are required to pay for parking, it is highly likely that surrounding residential streets will experience spill-over parking, placing further pressure on local amenity and residential access.
While the inclusion of two affordable housing units is acknowledged, this represents only a minimal component of the overall development and should not justify a substantial breach of established height and scale controls. Affordable housing outcomes, while important, must be delivered in a manner consistent with the strategic planning framework and character of the locality. In this context, the affordable housing component appears tokenistic and insufficient to outweigh the broader adverse impacts.
Approval of this development would establish a concerning precedent. Once a development of this height and bulk is permitted, it will become increasingly difficult to resist similar or more intensive proposals in the future. The cumulative effect would fundamentally alter Kingscliff from a low-rise coastal village into a higher-density corridor inconsistent with long-standing community expectations.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that this application be refused in its current form. Any redevelopment of the site should strictly comply with the existing 13.6 metre height limit and demonstrate appropriate bulk, scale and design consistent with Kingscliff’s established coastal village character.
Please do not permit this overdevelopment to proceed.
Thank you for considering this submission.

Please find attached a submission relating to a Mixed Use Development at 4-8 Bells Boulevard, Kingscliff (SSD-83069459).
This submission details my objection to the current application, primarily in regards to:
* Inadequate parking, being:
1. a shortfall of 88 spaces within the proposed development, and
2. a further 27-space deficit resulting from extinguishment of an existing easement providing parking for existing Bells Boulevard businesses.
* Excessive height increase from the existing 13.6 metres to 21 metres.
Concerns also detailed include excessive building bulk and scale, and overshadowing of proposed adjoining properties.
While I believe rezoning of the site to accommodate mixed use development, additional dwellings and activation, and increased employment is warranted, I cannot support the application in its current form.

I’m an owner of 4 apartments at Peppers Kingscliff the property next door to the proposed development.

I am concerned with the proposal for the following reasons

1. Building height of 21m is excessive and will over shadow adjacent properties . It’s also not in compliance with the zoning for the property. There are no properties in the immediate area of that height.

2. The traffic flow into the area is by one main street that already services 3 resorts and locals that enjoy the Salt dining precinct. The development puts unnecessary pressure on the current very serene area. There is a lack of infrastructure including public open space and amenities to support a 5 storey development.

3. The area is predominantly a tourist area that attracts visitors all year around. Including a large residential development will be detrimental to the area attracting tourists as it will destroy the holiday/ recreational feel of the area. Kingscliff community and the Tweed council currently benefit greatly financially and this area is know as a premium destination for tourists.

4. Its likely the development will not assist with the residential housing lack of supply and the pricing will be well beyond affordable for most as can be seen from the developments at Casuarina with 2br units priced over $15m . It will be a situation where the units will be purchased as holiday homes and rented out as short stay accommodation/ Airbnb. Essentially exacerbating the current situation.

5. We support the previous proposal of low rise mix of houses and duplexes.

6. Any future development should blend in with the streetscape and character of the surrounding resorts. Beachside feel , low rise and not densely populated. We don’t want the area turning into a Gold Coast high rise style . If this is approved it sets a dangerous precedent for the area with a large risk of over pricing and high density development.

7. Government should adhere to the planning controls set by council for the site

I object to this development proposal because it impacts the whole status of the salt village scene.
Peppers & Mantra apartments have historically provided a scenic tourist venue set around park & beach setting with accompanying ocean or hinterland views.
Development that removes these views because of a height increase should NOT be considered.
I purchased my Mantra apartment knowing that council zoning restricted the height of adjoining development that may take away my hinterland views of Mt warning and block afternoon sunshine onto mine and other Manta apartment balconies.
The proposed increase in height on the existing zoning would block views and create a canyon effect between Mantra apartments and the proposed structure providing a wind tunnel effect.
Any structure over the existing three storey height would suffer significantly more from the aircraft flight path noise that plagues the Mantra apartments.
No increase in height standard should be allowed.

I support the proposed Stage 3 development at Bells Boulevard as a well-considered addition to Salt Village. The mixed-use approach will help strengthen the precinct by combining housing, local activity, and employment opportunities in one walkable location. Importantly, the inclusion of a range of dwelling types, including more affordable options, will help maintain diversity in the community. The way the building heights transition across the site also appears carefully designed to respond to the surrounding neighbourhood, creating a development that feels balanced, appropriate, and supportive of Kingscliff’s coastal character.

I am the owner of Lot 145 in the Class 3 residential apartment building located at 9 Gunnamatta Ave, Kingscliff (registered as Strata Plan 73905) known as Mantra on Salt Beach.

My objections to this project are as follows:

1. Height of the proposed building:
. I support enforcement of the current TSC 3 storey height planning policy, for the reasons set out in that policy document, an
a. The original DA consents of 23 April 2003 for the Salt Beach Precinct envisaged that the site in question could be developed for Class 2 residential apartments, with a 3-storey height limitation
b. The current views to the west of our Resort, Mantra on Salt Beach would be seriously impacted by adding two storeys to the current height limit of 3 storeys.
c. We do not want this 5 story building proposal to set a precedence for other future developments to encourage multistorey buildings. We do not want another Surfers Paradise here!

2. Parking. The proposed development should comply with the ‘retail’ parking issues raised in the Tweed Shire Council submission, as well as the parking over-flow implications for the ‘residential’ parking area owned by SP 73905

a. I think Tweed Shire Council’s estimated parking shortfall is way under estimated.

3. Enforcement Of Use Intent. Conditions should be added to any DA consent to give formal effect to the intent that the apartments would be used for normal residential purposes only and that there be a restriction placed on that intent to prohibit short term lettings such as Air BnB and Stayz holiday lettings. That should be done by requiring the Developer to place negative covenants on the title registration to prohibit short term residential accommodation. The intent is clear but would be unenforceable without the negative covenants. Higher Courts have always upheld Torrens title indefeasibility.

4. Completion Deadline. There should be a fixed deadline for completion of the Development because the derelict site has been an eye-sore for locals for over 20 years.

By way of general comment, I do not support the TSC objection to the proponent’s preference to construct a residential flat building (rather than shop-top housing). Both options are compatible with the basic planning objective. As the Developer would have its capital at risk, it should have the right to choose between the two options.

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.