Hello

I am writing in strong support the Kingscliff Stage 3 proposal at Bells Boulevard and the associated planning pathway, including the proposed MU1 Mixed Use zoning.
This development responds directly to what Salt Village and the wider Kingscliff area actually need right now: more housing choice, a stronger town centre, and a place that works for residents year-round, not just during peak holiday periods. The proposal delivers a well-designed five-storey mixed-use building with active ground floor retail, residential apartments above, affordable housing units, basement parking, and generous landscaping and communal open space, including a swimming pool. This project would be a fantastic addition to the locale!

Salt Village already functions as a genuine local centre, with shops, accommodation, and excellent coastal amenity. What it lacks is enough permanent population to fully support those uses outside the tourist season and most of all variety/quality. An MU1 zoning outcome is the right tool in this location because it reinforces Salt Village as a place where people can live, shop, and access daily needs locally.
Additionally, the proposal supports housing diversity in a serviced, walkable location and strengthens the long-term economic and social vitality of the centre by bringing more residents into the heart of the village.

The proposed height is appropriate in this context, particularly given the site’s role as a northern gateway into Salt Village. A slightly more prominent built form at this location makes sense and helps mark the centre, provided it is well designed. The additional height allows for proper retail activation and residential above, with stepping and increasing setbacks at upper levels, a five-storey form can sit comfortably within a coastal village setting without feeling overbearing at street level.

The scheme also demonstrates a thoughtful approach to how the building meets the street and surrounding public spaces. Active ground floor retail and residential uses improve safety, vibrancy, and casual surveillance along Bells Boulevard. The inclusion of a landscaped central courtyard and shared spaces creates permeability and a more connected, community-focused outcome rather than a closed or insular development. The emphasis on landscaping and subtropical character aligns well with Kingscliff’s relaxed coastal identity and helps manage scale, bulk, and microclimate.

Importantly, the proposal delivers 69 dwellings, including two affordable housing units, which is a meaningful contribution in a coastal market where many locals and workers are increasingly priced out. It provides options for downsizers wanting to stay close to services, workers needing proximity to employment, and smaller households seeking to remain part of the community. By placing additional housing within an existing centre, the proposal makes better use of existing infrastructure and reduces pressure for outward sprawl. Overall, this is the kind of well-located, mixed-use development Kingscliff needs to remain a functional, livable, and resilient coastal town, and I strongly support its progression subject to detailed design conditions that ensure a high-quality outcome.

This is the exact project the government should be getting behind as it brings these regional areas to the forefront and provides us with supply to meet the growing demand of its populations.

Thank you!

V

I strongly support the Kingscliff Stage 3 proposal at Bells Boulevard and the associated planning pathway, including the proposed MU1 zoning outcome. In my view, this is an appropriate and strategic land use response for Salt Village, delivering a well conceived mixed use precinct that provides much needed housing diversity, including affordable housing, in a location already supported by existing infrastructure, services and amenity. The proposed mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom dwellings also supports a broader demographic, helping to retain local workers, downsizers and smaller households within Kingscliff.

From an urban design and town planning perspective, the built form approach is both deliberate and context responsive. The building envelope and massing have been handled sensitively through a stepping strategy that modulates height across the site, helping to manage visual bulk and transition to adjoining areas. In that context, I support the modest height uplift in the northern portion as a reasonable and proportionate planning response that enables a higher quality design outcome, improved internal amenity, and meaningful communal open space, while maintaining an overall scale that sits comfortably within its coastal village setting. The resultant form reads as balanced and well resolved rather than excessive, and is consistent with achieving good planning outcomes including activation, passive surveillance, and a stronger public domain interface.

The proposal also demonstrates a clear focus on delivering public benefit and place making outcomes. The central courtyard and shared facilities will support social interaction, active living and a stronger sense of community, while the emphasis on landscaping and greenery will improve the long term character and microclimate of the precinct. The project is designed to bring life to the street, improve permeability and enhance the public realm, which are key objectives for successful mixed use centres. The inclusion of appropriate on site servicing, waste management and car parking also indicates the proposal has been considered from an operational and day to day functionality standpoint.

Finally, the precinct would be fortunate to secure an architectural outcome of this quality. The involvement of SJB, a highly regarded and award winning practice, gives confidence that the proposal will deliver exemplary design excellence and a built form that elevates Salt Village, while respecting Kingscliff’s relaxed coastal identity. Overall, I consider the proposal to strike the right balance between intensification and sensitivity, and I encourage the Department to support and approve the Stage 3 development.

I have been a located resident since 2011.

We have an established business here locally.

This is exactly the kind of project Salt Village needs — something that brings life to the street, offers a range of housing, and supports local jobs. The central courtyard and shared spaces will encourage people to spend time together and help create a real sense of place. I fully support the modest height increase in the northern portion to achieve this great outcome.

I wish to lodge a submission objecting to key aspects of the proposed development at 4–8 Bells Boulevard, Kingscliff. My concerns relate to the proposed building height, parking provision, traffic impacts, affordable housing outcomes and the overall impact on the surrounding area. I'm not anti development but I have very real concerns about the size of the development. Firstly a 21m height construction is definitely not a modest change to the allowable 13.6 meters. 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. This height limit of 13.6m reflects a deliberate planning intent to maintain a low-rise coastal village character consistent with the existing built form.
I live very close by and can see multiple issues with the scale of this construction.
Inadequate parking for not only permanent tenants, but visitors. It will have a negative impact on those that already live in the area. Parking for overflow will definitely impact neighbours. Getting out on the Casuarina Way for Barrel or Banzai Streets is already an issue. Staff that currently work in the Sat precinct and currently park in the vicinity and on the current vacant dirt block adjoining the proposal, will have to find parking elsewhere, but where?
The cumulative impact of approving developments that exceed established height limits would fundamentally alter the character of the Salt precinct and Kingscliff over time, moving it away from the low-rise coastal village identity that has been carefully planned and maintained. Increased traffic is likely to impact pedestrian safety, cyclist movement, parking availability and overall neighbourhood amenity, particularly in nearby side streets.
The proposal includes only two affordable housing units. 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. it's laughable. Something to appease the Govt in their endeavour or is that rhetoric to meet the "quota" of affordable housing.
Taken together — excessive height, parking pressure, traffic impacts and limited affordable housing provision — the proposal risks detracting from the existing character and amenity of the area. Rather than integrating sensitively with its surroundings, the scale of the development has the potential to overwhelm the existing built form and undermine the qualities that define the Salt precinct.
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 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. This beautiful part of the world will lose its charm.

Yours Sincerely
Linda D'Astole

FORMAL SUBMISSION – OBJECTION
Proposed Development: Bells Boulevard, Salt Village, Kingscliff
Authority: Tweed Shire Council
Dear Councillors,
I write to formally object to the proposed five-storey development at Bells Boulevard, Salt Village, Kingscliff.
This objection is made on planning grounds pursuant to Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), having regard to environmental planning instruments, likely impacts, suitability of the site, and the public interest.
1. Non-Compliance with Height, Scale and Built Form Objectives
The original proposal for the site was three storeys (13.6m). The current proposal seeks five storeys (21m), representing a substantial intensification.
Under the Tweed Local Environmental Plan (TLEP) and applicable Development Control Plans (DCP), height controls and built form objectives are intended to:
Ensure development is compatible with surrounding character
Protect amenity of adjoining land
Maintain coastal village scale
Prevent visual dominance and bulk
The surrounding area is predominantly low-rise residential dwellings. A five-storey building at 21 metres is incompatible with the established and desired future character of Salt Village and broader Kingscliff.
The proposal fails the fundamental planning test of contextual response and does not demonstrate appropriate transition in scale.
Approval would set a precedent for similar height variations within the tourism precinct and adjacent residential zones, undermining the integrity of existing planning controls.
2. Inconsistency with Zone Objectives
Although located within a tourism precinct, the site is immediately surrounded by residential dwellings.
Planning principles require that development:
Achieve a reasonable interface between differing zones
Minimise land use conflict
Protect residential amenity
A five-storey structure creates an unreasonable bulk and scale interface with neighbouring low-density residential development. The tourism zoning does not justify an urban-scale outcome in a coastal village context.
Zoning permissibility does not equate to appropriateness of scale.
3. Overshadowing and Public Safety – Adverse Environmental Impacts
Under Section 4.15(1)(b), Council must consider the likely impacts of the development, including environmental and social impacts.
The proposed height will result in significant overshadowing of:
The nearby busy roundabout
Pedestrian areas
Road corridors
Overshadowing at a high-traffic intersection raises legitimate public safety concerns, including:
Reduced driver visibility
Increased accident risk
Pedestrian safety impacts
This is particularly concerning given:
The high seasonal tourist traffic
Children crossing to bus stops
Increased vehicle movements generated by the development
A development that introduces foreseeable traffic risk without infrastructure mitigation cannot be considered acceptable planning.
4. Traffic and Infrastructure Capacity – Failure to Demonstrate Adequate Services
Section 4.15 requires consideration of whether infrastructure is adequate to service the development.
The proposal will increase traffic along Casuarina Way and surrounding streets. There is no clear commitment to infrastructure upgrades to address:
Road capacity
Intersection performance
Pedestrian safety measures
Road maintenance burden
Drainage impacts
Tweed Shire Council already faces challenges maintaining road conditions, particularly after heavy rainfall events. Intensifying traffic loads without corresponding infrastructure improvements is inconsistent with orderly and sustainable development principles.
The cumulative impact of traffic generation must be assessed, not merely the isolated impact of this proposal.
5. Parking Deficiencies and Amenity Impacts
Parking provision appears inadequate when realistic vehicle ownership patterns are considered.
In practice:
Many dwellings will accommodate more than one adult.
Multiple vehicle ownership is likely.
Overflow parking will extend into surrounding residential streets.
The Salt Village precinct already experiences high parking demand from:
Resort guests
Hospitality patrons
Local employees
Spillover parking into narrow residential streets will diminish residential amenity and may impede emergency vehicle access.
Development must not externalise its parking burden onto existing residents.
6. Failure to Deliver Genuine Affordable Housing
The proposal references “affordable housing” provision. However:
Only two one-bedroom units are proposed.
Indicative pricing is approximately $900,000.
Market escalation suggests potential sale prices exceeding $1,000,000 upon completion.
Under NSW planning principles, affordable housing must be genuinely accessible to low-to-moderate income households or key workers.
A $900,000–$1,000,000 one-bedroom dwelling does not meet any reasonable definition of affordable housing.
The minimal provision does not justify the scale uplift sought.
7. Character and Public Interest
Section 4.15(1)(e) requires consideration of the public interest.
Kingscliff and Salt Village are characterised by:
Coastal village scale
Low to mid-rise built form
Relaxed, non-urban atmosphere
A five-storey building materially alters this character and introduces urban density inconsistent with the established identity of the area.
There is no precedent in Salt Village for a development of this magnitude. Approval risks incremental urbanisation contrary to community expectations and adopted planning strategies.
The public interest lies in protecting the character and amenity of established coastal communities.
8. Environmental Impact – Threatened Species
The locality is known habitat for Bush Stone-curlews (a threatened species in NSW).
Increased density, lighting, traffic and human disturbance may:
Disrupt nesting
Reduce habitat viability
Increase mortality risk
Under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (NSW), Council must consider impacts on threatened species and ecological communities.
Precautionary principles should apply where habitat is present.
Conclusion
Having regard to Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, this proposal:
Is excessive in height and scale
Is incompatible with surrounding residential character
Creates traffic and parking impacts without demonstrated infrastructure capacity
Raises legitimate public safety concerns
Fails to provide genuine affordable housing
Risks environmental harm
Sets an undesirable precedent
For these reasons, I respectfully request that Council refuse the application in its current form.
Should Council consider approval, the development must be substantially reduced to align with the original three-storey (13.6m) intent and the established coastal character of Salt Village.
Kingscliff’s identity as a low-scale coastal community should not be compromised by inappropriate intensification.
Kind regards
Terri de Rooy

To: Kieran Thomas, Director – Housing Delivery Assessments
CC: Fiona Dowler

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

Dear Mr. Thomas,

I am the registered proprietor of a lot within SP 73905 (9 Gunnamatta Ave, Kingscliff). I declare that I have made no reportable political donations in the previous two years and accept the Department’s disclaimer and declaration conditions.
While I hold a position of general support for 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 submit that the proposed five-storey scale at a height of 21.5 metres represents an inappropriate "abrupt change in scale" (per the NSW Apartment Design Guide) and is inconsistent with the "desired future character" of the locality. The proposed development fails to align with the intended scenic landscapes, neighborhood character, and locality plans of the Kingscliff area. The proposals do not transition smoothly to neighbouring properties and causes a sharp, noticeable contrast in bulk when compared to neighbouring properties. To allow this proposal would set an unwanted and undesirable precedent. Establishing a precedent of this kind makes it increasingly difficult to uphold future planning regulations. Over time, the cumulative effect of approving buildings that exceed height limits would fundamentally erode the coastal village character of the Salt precinct and Kingscliff, undermining a low-rise identity that has been meticulously planned and protected. In addition 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. Kingscliff already faces significant on-street parking pressure, especially during peak times. Any lack of on-site parking will likely push vehicles into neighbouring residential areas, congesting streets and diminishing the local quality of life.
3. Restriction as to User (Short-term Rental Management)
To safeguard the development’s contribution to permanent housing stock, I request the imposition of a Public Positive Covenant or a Section 88B instrument (Conveyancing Act 1919) on the title. This should restrict use to permanent residential occupation, ensuring the development does not pivot to Short-Term Rental Accommodation (STRA), which would bypass the intent of the Housing Delivery Assessment.
4. Lapse of Consent and Project Delivery
Given the site’s 20-year history of vacancy and its status as a "derelict site," I urge the Department to consider a shortened "Lapsing of Consent" period or a staged construction condition to ensure the timely delivery of the built form and the remediation of the local amenity.

I strongly suppport this project - I am originally from the Gold Coast & spend quite a lot of time each year holidaying in this area (for the past 20 years). Generally I stay at Peppers Resort but find the surrounding retail amenity to be quite underwhelming. This project will be bring more diverse living options to the area (given how expensive houses are now in Kingscliff/Casuarina) & it will also bring some much needed amenity (particularly wellness which I think fits the area very well & is currently underuspplied).

the proposed building is way higher than the allowed height limit on the Tweed Coast , we dont need anything higher as the 3 storey limit makes the Tweed coast unique , I am a builder who is pro development , but current hight limit needs to be enforced.
the Developer has mentioned affordable housing in his submission , that statement is not for first home owners , the units will be priced in the millions. he wants retails shops but there is an abundance of retail shop in the tweed that are sitting vacant .

I object to the existing DA and list some but not all of my concerns in this summary. more detail details in the attachment below:

1. Excessive height
2. Retail in an area where all the existing shopping locations have ongoing long-term vacancies which they are unable to fill – more people shop online & more retail shops or medical offices are simply not required.
3. Visually, this proposal sits at the entry to Salt Village & will detract from the planned and effective streetscape because of its height and bulk
4. I object to a change of zoning
5. Parking provisions are woefully inadequate, And the developer has removed 27 street spaces and not replaced them plus the two levels of basement parking are inadequate.
6. Traffic;.The loading Bay and general garbage/facilities area is directly opposite MANTRA which is a tourism accommodation hub. Our local tourist guests do not need the disturbance of garbage vans and excessive use of the loading zone early morning or at night; perhaps the use of the loading zone could be limited to 9 to 5.
6B . Insufficient detail has been provided about the traffic flow and the effect on neighbours peaceful enjoyment in their homes. Further, given the lack of parking planned if this were to go ahead, people would park in the surrounding streets which generally are not as wide as metropolitan streets, and this would affect local residents.
6C The main road is Casuarina Way, which is single lane in both directions and this additional traffic will put tremendous pressure on the road, and There is not repeat not an alternative route from the south. From the north we have a single lane road leading to the bridge over Cudgen Creek which again is insufficient.
7. Tourism Implications A lot of time and $1 billion went into developing the Salt precinct hence it success as a village atmosphere holiday destination. Changing the zoning and increasing the height limitations for additional resident accommodation will change the feel of the area and our visitor profile will most likely decrease. If people want a Gold Coast experience they will go there but we don't want them thinking we are becoming the Gold Coast, because we are an attractive alternative to it . What research and data has been done to convince us that our tourists will continue?
8. Additionally employment – a lot of local people people rely on the tourism industry for their livelihood – reference Tweed Council's tourism figures Plus Tourism NSW tourism figures. We do not want to jeopardise jobs because of a downturn of visitors because of a zoning change.
WE ARE TOURISM AND WE WANT TO STAY TOURISM FOCUSED
9. Affordable housing: This is laughably insufficient and ridiculous.
10. Lastly, the lack of community consultation is both alarming and needs to be noted. We are all aware that this is the first of many possible changes to the Tweed Coast & the fact the department has not Advertise this DA through the local paper, member of Parliament, local television etc. Plus only emailed residence within a 2 to 500 meter radius is an error that needs addressing. I feel the Pause button needs to be pressed and the department must let all the local community know about this zoning change and height increase and give them all the opportunity to respond.

FINALLY, I would ONLY support a DA that has a maximum of three stories; keeps the current zoning; and has a similar visual impact as to the rest of the Salt complex. In my opinion the developer needs to keep two floors of underground parking; needs to reduce the height of the building to 3 stories, and lose the ground floor retail or service facilities completely.