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.

I have reviewed the design and do not believe that the height is an issue. The project with higher building, transitioning to lower units and then to residential is very smart. It will finish the Salt precinct on a site which has been very ugly for many years.

NSW PLANNING PORTAL – SSD-83069459
Height to be restricted
1. 21.5m height [5 STORIES] is too high for Kingscliff SALT precinct.
2. 21.5m is 54.41% higher than the normal limit of 13.6m for a 3 story development and should NOT be approved.
3. 21.5 m will detract from the street scape and will overpower the area.
4. 21.5m height [5 STORIES] will cast winter sun shadows over the new very high density housing development on the south side.
Car Parking
5. Car parking is already in limited supply in the SALT precinct. It should be compulsory for developers to provide one car park for 1 bed units, two car parks for 2 & 3 + bed units.
6. Developer must have to provide parking for visitors / customers to the commercial ground floor units and for any overflow from the residential units above. Salt Village car parking along Bells Blvd is mostly full, most of the time and especially on weekends when parking is at a premium.
7. The extremely high density housing development on the south side of Bells Blvd should also have had one car park for every 1 bed and 2 car parks for every 2 and 3 bed houses. On street parking has already been flagged to become a nightmare in surrounding streets for this development.
Note – I live in Longboard Circuit where we already have parking problems with a commercial truck with tree shredder trailer, caravans, boats on trailers being permanently parked and numerous other cars parked all hours. This makes it difficult to get in and out of the street and driveways.
Emergency vehicles and bin collection vehicles also have problems navigating the narrow street. The overflow from the Bell Blvd development will ultimately negatively impact all surrounding streets including our street Longboard Cct.
Affordable Housing
8. One would have to be of low intellect to believe a one bedroom unit for $900,000 is affordable housing. IT IS NOT!
Commercial Bin Collection at 4-8 Bells Blvd
9. Commercial bin collections will be a big problem for residents to the south. Pick-up time limits will need to be introduced and enforced of say 7am at earliest.

While I don’t object to any development of this land, I do strongly object to the increase in height of this development. The current height limit is 3 storeys/13.6m. It is absolutely ridiculous for this to be changed and a development approved by saying that there are “2 affordable homes “ in this development. Nothing in this development will be affordable. This loophole is simply being used to push for big development in this area. To allow this development to go ahead and approve a building of 5 storeys/21m will set a precedent not only for this area but for all of the Tweed Shire for other developments like this to go ahead. This IS NOT what the permanent residents of Tweed want. There is inadequate parking in the area to accommodate a development of this size and the permanent residents in surrounding streets will be negatively impacted by this. There is insufficient infrastructure to support a development of this size. The roads through Kingscliff and Casuarina are suburban streets, 50kmh zones, roads that our kids cross everyday to get to school. They are not main roads and are not suitable for the increase in traffic that developments of this size would bring. This is not the Gold Coast and this is not what Tweed residents want for their area. There could be a much more suitable development built on this land. This is not a development that will have any impact whatsoever on the housing crises.

We need to stick to the original height limit that Salt has been built upon .

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).
This submission is not an objection to the development in principle. Appropriate development can contribute positively to Kingscliff when it aligns with established planning controls and respects the character and capacity of the local environment. However, 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
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 represents an inappropriate "abrupt change in scale" (per the NSW Apartment Design Guide) and is inconsistent with the "desired current and 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. Also 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.
Affordable Housing Contribution

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.
The limited number of affordable units suggests a minimal compliance approach rather than a meaningful contribution to housing diversity or community need.

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.
Conclusion
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.

Thank you for your consideration.
The outcome will impact the community for years to come.

My concerns relate to the proposed building height, parking provision, traffic impacts, and the overall impact on the surrounding area.

1. Current Height Limit in Kingscliff and the Salt Precinct
Under the Tweed Local Environmental Plan 2014, the maximum building height that applies to mixed-use and town centre areas in Kingscliff, including land within and adjacent to the Salt precinct, is 13.6 metres. This height limit reflects a deliberate planning intent to maintain a low-rise coastal village character consistent with the existing built form.
The proposal seeks approval for buildings of up to 18 metres, or five storeys. There is no precedent for development of this type or height within the Salt precinct or the surrounding Kingscliff area. Existing development has consistently complied with established height limits and built-form controls.

2. Excessive Building Height and Departure from Planning Controls
A five-storey development represents a clear departure from the established planning framework. The proposed height significantly exceeds the current height limit and is inconsistent with the scale and character of surrounding development.
Approving a development of this height would undermine the intent of the existing planning controls and weaken confidence in their ongoing application.

3. Precedent and Cumulative Impact
Approval of this proposal would set a precedent for future developments seeking similar or greater height variations. Once such a precedent is established, it becomes increasingly difficult to resist further departures from the planning framework.
The cumulative impact of approving developments that exceed established height limits will 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.

4. Parking Provision and Likely Shortfall
While the proposal includes basement parking, there is insufficient confidence that the number of spaces provided will adequately meet demand generated by residents, visitors, retail users, staff, and service vehicles.
Salt already experiences pressure on on-street parking, particularly during peak periods. Any shortfall in on-site parking is likely to result in spill-over into surrounding residential streets, reducing amenity for existing residents and increasing congestion.

5. Traffic Impacts and Side Street Congestion
A development of this scale will generate increased traffic volumes, including private vehicles, deliveries, ride-share services, and service vehicles. Bells Boulevard and surrounding streets are local roads designed for a coastal village environment and may not be suitable for intensified traffic levels.
Increased traffic is likely to impact pedestrian safety, cyclist movement, parking availability, and overall neighbourhood amenity, particularly in nearby side streets.

6. Impact on Surrounding Character and Amenity
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.

Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully object to the proposed development in its current form. I request that the building height be reduced to align with the existing 13.6-metre limit, that parking and traffic impacts be more rigorously addressed, and that greater weight be given to the long-term character and liveability of Kingscliff and the Salt precinct.