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

Seaisle Pty Ltd purchased an apartment in the Mantra on salt apartments taking into account the zoning on adjoining vacant land that would ensure future development would be compatible with the tourist friendly apartments with tourist facilities & open space and parklike setting.
Seaisle P/L did not envisage a rezoning to allow five storeys out of character structure overshadowing our investment with loss of views and amenity.
The proposed increase of building height to five storey should not be considered when existing three storey adjoining structures already experience intense low flying aircraft noise and the five storey height would allow overlooking and overshadowing of Mantra apartments.
The subject site would be better integrated into the existing precinct by utilising a three storey tourist apartments similar to the Peppers & Mantra apartments.
The increased height to five storey will set a precedent for future development , reducing the coastal ambience of the area.

Objection to Development Application – 4–8 Bells Boulevard, Kingscliff
I am writing to formally object to significant elements of the proposed development at 4–8 Bells Boulevard, Kingscliff. My primary concerns centre on the excessive building height, inadequate parking supply, resulting traffic effects, the minimal affordable housing component, and the broader consequences for the local neighbourhood.
This objection is not against development itself. Well-designed projects can enhance Kingscliff when they respect the area's established planning rules and preserve its distinctive local environment and character. That said, the proposed scale and intensity exceed what has typically been approved or considered appropriate here, and could create an unwelcome benchmark for future proposals.

Established Height Controls in Kingscliff and the Salt Area
The Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2014 sets a maximum building height of 13.6 metres for mixed-use and town centre zones in Kingscliff, including sites in and around the Salt precinct. This limit is intentionally set to protect the area's low-rise coastal village feel, in line with the prevailing built form.
The application proposes structures reaching up to 18 metres (five storeys). No comparable height or form exists in the Salt precinct or nearby parts of Kingscliff — all existing developments have adhered to the recognised height and design standards.

Unacceptable Height Increase and Inconsistency with Planning Framework
A five-storey building clearly diverges from the current planning provisions. The suggested height substantially surpasses the 13.6-metre cap and clashes with the scale and appearance of neighbouring properties.
Although described as a minor adjustment, the jump from 13.6 metres to 18 metres is considerable in planning context — it noticeably changes the building's mass, presence, and visual dominance.
If approved, this would erode the purpose of the existing controls and reduce trust in their consistent enforcement.

Risk of Precedent and Long-Term Cumulative Effects
Granting approval here would encourage other applicants to seek equivalent or larger height concessions. Precedents of this kind make it harder to uphold the planning framework in future cases.
Over time, repeated approvals of taller buildings would gradually transform the Salt precinct and Kingscliff, shifting away from the carefully nurtured low-rise coastal village aesthetic.

Concerns with Parking Supply and Potential Shortages
The basement parking proposed appears unlikely to fully accommodate the needs of residents, guests, retail patrons, employees, and service/delivery vehicles.
Kingscliff already faces significant on-street parking strain, especially at busy times. If on-site spaces fall short, overflow parking will almost certainly spill into adjacent residential streets, harming local amenity and adding to congestion.

Traffic Generation and Effects on Local Streets
A project of this magnitude will produce higher traffic flows — from private cars, delivery vans, ride-sharing, and service access. Bells Boulevard and connecting roads are local streets built for it's relaxed coastal setting, not suited to substantially increased vehicle movements.
This added traffic could compromise pedestrian and cyclist safety, reduce parking options, and degrade the overall quality of life in surrounding side streets. As it currently stands, we are already facing increased traffic in the area with Kings Forest going in.

Affordable Housing Provision
Only two affordable housing units are included in the proposal. While any contribution is welcome, this amount is very limited relative to the project's overall size and offers little real progress toward addressing housing affordability challenges in the area.
It gives the impression of bare-minimum compliance rather than a genuine effort to support housing diversity or community requirements.

Overall Effect on Local Character and Liveability
Combining the oversized height, parking constraints, traffic pressures, and token affordable housing offering, the development threatens to diminish rather than complement the existing character and appeal of the neighbourhood. Its scale has the potential to dominate the surroundings and erode the special qualities that make the Salt precinct valued.

Conclusion
For the reasons detailed above, I respectfully object to the development as currently proposed. I urge the consent authority to require the building height to be brought back in line with the 13.6-metre standard, to ensure robust solutions for parking and traffic management, and to prioritise the long-term character, liveability, and identity of Kingscliff and the Salt precinct.
Thank you for considering this submission.

I object to the rezoning of land in Kingscliff and change of height limits as per Tweed Shire Council.
In relation to this project in particular, it is opposite single dwelling homes and will be completely out of character with the area. When the Tweed Valley hospital was built and the land rezoned from significant farmland, the residents of Kingscliff were promised there would be no more rezoning.
We are not part of the Gold Coast and people choose to live here because of the low rise village town feel.